Hip Hop as Martial Art

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Griffith Rollefson
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Hip Hop ◽  
Rap Music ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Kung Fu ◽  
Martial Art ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines how hip hop exemplifies the instrumentalization of verbal arsenals, lyrical kung fu, and other rhetorical gestures to “words as weapons.” Indeed, this weaponization of knowledge may be thought of as the very premise of hip hop—of rap music as martial art. While this theorization will help explain hip hop’s enduring polycultural commitment to martial arts, the aim here is a more foundational one—to account for the ways that the trope of physical violence functions in hip hop discourses and performative practices. The chapter employs a political economy framework to argue that this translation from the discursive to the material is a counterhegemonic response to the conflation of the First and Second Amendments of the US Constitution: “the freedom of speech” and “the right to bear arms.” The chapter concludes by explaining why hip hop has proven an unlikely force for nonviolence in the Black Lives Matter moment.

Where to limit the freedom of speech? Analysis in the context of the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the fighting words doctrine

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-256
Author(s):  
Karolina Palka
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Socialist ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Socialist Party Of America ◽  
The Right

This article is about the limits of the right to free speech. The first section provides a brief introduction to this topic, primarily in the context of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The second section describes the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which was fundamental to the topic of this paper because the United States Supreme Court created the so-called "fighting words" doctrine based on it. In the next two sections, two court cases are presented that perfectly demonstrate the limits of the right to free speech in the United States: Snyder v. Phelps and Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America. The fifth part shows the right to freedom of speech in the context of Polish civil, criminal, and constitutional law, as well as acts of international law binding on Poland. The last part is a short summary.

scholarly journals Freedom of Expression in the US Constitution: Formation and Development

2019 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 30-37
Author(s):  
O. V. Sendetskaya
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
The Right

The essence of such rights as the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of speech has been analyzed. Based on the United States regulations, the author has compared approaches to understanding and interpreting freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Freedom of expression has been studied as one of the dominant values of constitutionalism, a precondition for democracy and the rule of law. Historical aspects of the formulation of the right to freedom of speech in the United States of America, as well as its consistent regulatory enshrinement and interpretation have been analyzed. Different approaches to the constitutional proclamation of the freedom of speech have been researched and the optimal formulation of the said law has been clarified. Particular attention has been paid to the differences between American and European concepts of freedom of expression, and fundamentally different points in its understanding. The importance of banning the oppression of freedom of expression for the development of a democratic society and the market for ideas has been substantiated. Particular attention has been paid to the study of the formation and development of these rights under US law and their enactment. Based on a comparison of American and Ukrainian options for guaranteeing this right, their advantages and disadvantages have been highlighted, which may assist in gaining positive experience for Ukraine. The author has made conclusions regarding the higher level of guaranteeing the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech in the practice of the United States, although these rights are more detail enshrined in Ukrainian law. The author has argued in favor of the fact that Ukraine should take into account the American approach to the protection of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech, as well as to establish a mechanism for their observance as fundamental personal human and civil rights.

Judicial Review

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Schillig
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Bank Resolution ◽  
The Us ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Takings Clause ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The exercise of extensive powers by authorities during the recovery and resolution process may interfere with constitutionally protected fundamental rights of stakeholder in a multitude of ways. Particularly relevant are the right to conduct a business and the right to property under the EU Charter of fundamental rights, as well as the takings clause under the US constitution. A balance needs to be struck between the aims and objectives of bank resolution and the rights of investors and the requirements of due process. This is normally achieved through expedited and limited judicial review. This chapter assesses whether and to what extent the respective procedures are in line with constitutional and fundamental rights requirements.

Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
David Lanius
Keyword(s):  
Human Dignity ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution

The US Constitution states that freedom of speech shall not be abridged, but it does not tell us what kind of speech is protected. The German Basic Law states that human dignity shall be inviolable, but it does not tell us what kind of behavior would violate it. There have consistently been complaints that such constitutional provisions say nothing by themselves. Why are they phrased so broadly?...

Fixers and Framers: Reconsidering the Sources and Meaning of the American Founding

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Max M. Edling
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Search And Seizure ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
American Founding ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Us ◽  
Single Entry ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
The Right

In Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution, Woody Holton recounts how he introduces his students to the framing of the US Constitution by playing a game. Dividing the blackboard into three sections, he invites his students to shout out their favorite clauses of the Constitution. Holton enters the clauses in the columns and asks his students to label them. Clauses like freedom of religion and speech, freedom from illegal search and seizure, and the right to bear arms end up in the third column, which the students soon recognize as the Bill of Rights. In the first column are clauses taken over from the Articles of Confederation. The second column, which typically ends up with the single entry of “checks and balances,” is the Constitution without amendments. Students struggle to label the first and second columns correctly. When they finally do, they are struck by the fact that the most popular clauses of the Constitution are not in the original document.

Critical perception by the leaders of the populist party of the US Constitution (turn of the 19th–20th centuries)

2021 ◽  
pp. 341-352
Author(s):  
Ivan V. Smirnov
Keyword(s):  
Founding Fathers ◽  
Domestic Literature ◽  
Corporate Capital ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Populist Party

The subject of this research is the criticism by the populist party, which went down in history as one of the most radical farmers’ organizations in North America, of the text of the US Constitution, which for many generations of Americans has been considered the “holy book” of freedom as the standard of building a democratic state. The views of a number of party ideologists on the process of adoption and on the essence of the Basic Law of the American state are considered. This study is the first study in the domestic literature in which, on the basis of archival and published sources, it is shown the reasons for the negative perception by populists of the foundations of a federal structure, which, in their opinion, serves exclusively the interests of corporate capital, from which it is concluded that the US Constitution is not intended to protect human rights, but to reduce them to a minimum through a number of means designed by the “founding fathers” (creation of a strong federal government, indirect elections of senators and the president of the country, irreplaceability of Supreme Court judges, as well as the right to judicial review of laws for compliance with the Constitution, etc.). In the conclusion, the methods proposed by populist ideologues to correct the shortcomings and democratization of the US constitutional order are described in detail.

Privacy and Speech

2021 ◽  
pp. 291-311
Author(s):  
Ioanna Tourkochoriti
Keyword(s):  
Human Dignity ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Debate ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Right ◽  
Extended Interpretation

This chapter discusses the concept of privacy and case law which shows the different approaches between Europe and the US concerning the balancing of freedom of speech when it conflicts with other rights. Judges and scholars also refer to the concept of human dignity in this area. The concept of dignity can serve in the US in order to limit freedom of expression, whereas it serves in Europe as a foundation of the need to limit freedom of expression. The requirement for government transparency creates a presumption in favour of protecting expression. The extended interpretation of ‘privacy’ in the law of many European states means depriving the public debate from information that would be crucial to a well-informed electorate. The chapter then looks at the intermediate concepts that judges have come up with in order to balance the exercise of rights in conflict. Those criteria concern the periphery of the activities that are to be protected by the right to privacy. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the right to be forgotten.

COMPANIES AND THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 661-696 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Oliver
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Double Jeopardy ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Right

AbstractThis article explores the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Justice and the US Supreme Court on the fundamental rights of commercial companies. The rights considered include property, the privilege against self-incrimination, freedom of speech, double jeopardy, the right to make political donations, and the freedom of religion. The article highlights the dangers of taking the fundamental rights of companies too far, as has recently occurred in the US; and it advocates a cautious and coordinated approach to this delicate issue, which has become increasingly important on both sides of the Atlantic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document