English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper explores how restrictions on expression – a dimension of United States (US) and French counterterror policy – are realized given the socio-political and legalprocedural differences between the two countries. Theoretically, the US – with its strong constitutional free speech protections and its tradition of limited government – should respond less aggressively than France, which has a more flexible constitution and a statist tradition. This paper contends that while France restricts terror-related expression to a greater degree than the US, the US possesses more tools to counter terror-related expression than its constitution suggests. The primary explanation for less forceful US action stems not from constitutional limits, but from a US proclivity for military counterterrorism abroad, which takes focus away from domestic measures to disrupt terrorist propaganda. The policy inconsistencies identified in this paper contribute to not only the theoretical debate on responses to terrorism, but also the practical one playing out on legislative floors today.

Restrictions on Expression as a Counter-Terror Policy in th e United States and France: Divergence by Design or Curious Convergence?