“You’re Either a Missionary or a Mission Field”: A Critical Examination of Contrasting American and European Approaches to Regulating Proselytism and Related Religious Speech

In recent decades, legal precedents developed by the Supreme Court of the United States and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) have diverged markedly in their willingness to countenance laws regulating proselytism and related forms of religious speech. Whereas the United States grants robust protections to proselytizers in order to guard against content- or viewpoint-based restrictions on speech meant to persuade, the ECHR often upholds such restrictions in an effort to balance the free speech and free exercise rights of speakers with the dignitary concerns of listeners and the state’s interest in maintaining civic peace. This paper seeks to elucidate and analyze the reasons underlying these contrasting doctrinal approaches. In doing so, particular emphasis will be placed on the role that discourses surrounding “human dignity” play in shaping how legal disputes over proselytism are framed, deliberated upon, and ultimately resolved within these two legal regimes.