The growth of judicial power globally has renewed scholarly debates about who benefits from increased judicial authority. Using original data, we examine the full universe of constitutional free expression decisions issued by three apex courts—in Colombia, India, and South Africa—across three categories of disputes that feature a diverse array of rights claimants. By so doing, we shed light on the limits of elite-driven accounts of judicial empowerment. We find that even where constitutional courts are empowered by elites seeking to advance their own interests, activist courts can develop a practice of rights-protection that benefits a diverse range of less powerful actors. Moreover, regardless of whether the speech claimants are elite or non-elite actors, these three apex courts regularly rule in favor of free expression for dissenting or unorthodox speech acts. In sum, where issues are peripheral to the governing regime’s core interests, relatively powerless actors are sometimes able to use legal processes to advance their rights and interests.

中文翻译：

---

哥伦比亚、印度和南非的言论自由和司法权

全球司法权力的增长重新引发了关于谁从司法权力的增加中受益的学术辩论。使用原始数据，我们审查了哥伦比亚、印度和南非三个最高法院发布的宪法自由表达决定的全部内容，涉及三类争议，其中包括各种权利要求人。通过这样做，我们揭示了精英驱动的司法赋权账户的局限性。我们发现，即使宪法法院由寻求促进自身利益的精英授权，维权法院也可以发展一种权利保护实践，使各种权力较小的行为者受益。此外，无论演讲者是精英还是非精英演员，这三个最高法院经常裁定反对或非正统言论行为的自由表达。总而言之，在治理政权的核心利益无关紧要的问题上，相对无权的行为者有时能够利用法律程序来推进他们的权利和利益。