Replication Data for: Giving Succor to Extremism
<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|> You are a research archivist expert in dataset metadata. Answer the question truthfully.  <|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|> Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'Free speech is essential to democracy and political participation. But scholars hold competing expectations about whether courts will protect free speech in similar ways for extremism. Drawing on free-speech cases from high courts in Australia, Canada, India, South Africa as well as the European Court of Human Rights, I show that judges are substantially less likely to support free speech in cases involving extremist claimants or extreme speech. Moreover, I demonstrate how judges tailor their arguments in response to concerns about extremism.  This evidence has implications for our understanding of judicial behavior and the role that courts play in preserving democracy' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|> {"Answer" : ["Free speech"]} <|eot_id|>
 Here is the Description of a dataset. Description:'Free speech is essential to democracy and political participation. But scholars hold competing expectations about whether courts will protect free speech in similar ways for extremism. Drawing on free-speech cases from high courts in Australia, Canada, India, South Africa as well as the European Court of Human Rights, I show that judges are substantially less likely to support free speech in cases involving extremist claimants or extreme speech. Moreover, I demonstrate how judges tailor their arguments in response to concerns about extremism.  This evidence has implications for our understanding of judicial behavior and the role that courts play in preserving democracy' . Please return only a json list of at most 3 Keywords corresponding to the Description:.
Free speech is essential to democracy and political participation. But scholars hold competing expectations about whether courts will protect free speech in similar ways for extremism. Drawing on free-speech cases from high courts in Australia, Canada, India, South Africa as well as the European Court of Human Rights, I show that judges are substantially less likely to support free speech in cases involving extremist claimants or extreme speech. Moreover, I demonstrate how judges tailor their arguments in response to concerns about extremism.  This evidence has implications for our understanding of judicial behavior and the role that courts play in preserving democracy
Free speech