September 20, 2021

Delgado and Stefancic on Love in the Time of Cholera

Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, both of the University of Alabama School of Law, have published Love in the Time of Cholera at 68 UCLA L. Rev. Online 176 (2020). Here is the abstract.
Uses a famous novel by Gabriel Garcia Marquez as a starting point for a sustained critique of Donald J. Trump's performance during the coronavirus crisis of 2020-21.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

September 14, 2021

Law and Creativity in a Pandemic: A Time of Remarkable Flourishing: A Free Public Event, November 24, 2021

Via the Law and Culture Mailing List

Law and creativity in a pandemic: a time of remarkable flourishing

 

A panel of artists and poets discuss how lockdown restrictions proved to be a unique source of creative inspiration and connection. Wed 24th November 2021, 6pm-7pm (online).

 

This free public event features short presentations from Cheryl Moskowitz (US born poet, educator and creative translator), Jenny Elliott (Chief Executive Officer and Artistic Director of Arts Care, 2011-2021), and Laila Sumpton (poet, educator and performer). It is organised and chaired by David Gurnham and Haris Psarras (School of Law, University of Southampton), as part of the ESRC Festival of Social Sciences. 



Register through the Eventbrite link below to receive joining instructions:

 

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/law-and-creativity-in-a-pandemic-a-time-of-remarkable-flourishing-tickets-170339572246


Law and creativity in a pandemic: a time of remarkable flourishing Tickets, Wed 24 Nov 2021 at 18:00 | Eventbrite

Cheryl Moskowitz is a US born poet, educator and creative translator with a background in theatre and psychoanalysis. She is the author of several plays, two poetry collections and a novel. For 14 years she taught on the Creative Writing and Personal Development MA at Sussex University, was an external supervisor for arts therapies in forensics and regularly runs writing projects in the community.

www.eventbrite.co.uk


September 10, 2021

Book Symposium: Metaphors of Confinement: The Prison in Fact, Fiction and Fantasy @clsgcQM @ArsScripta

 Book Symposium: Metaphors of Confinement: The Prison in Fact, Fiction and Fantasy

About this event

The Centre for Law and Society in a Global ContextThe Criminal Justice Centre and The Centre for the History of Emotions are delighted to be co-hosting an interdisciplinary book symposium on Prof. Dr. Monika Fludernik’s Metaphors of Confinement: The Prison in Fact, Fiction and Fantasy. The symposium is organised by Professor Maks Del Mar (QMUL). 

Chair: Professor Maks Del Mar (QMUL)

Speakers:

Prof. Dr. Monika Fludernik (University of Freiburg) 

Professor Lindsay Farmer (University of Glasgow) 

Professor Alan Norrie (University of Warwick) 

Dr Hanneke Stuit (University of Amsterdam) 

Professor Anne Schwan (Edinburgh Napier University) 

4pm: Intro to Speakers – chair: Maks Del Mar, 5min

4.05pm: Intro Book – by author: Monika Fludernik, 10min

4.15pm: Commentator 1, 10min

4.25pm: Commentator 2, 10min

4.35pm: Response / Brief Discussion with commentators, 10min

4.45pm: 5min Break

4.50pm: Commentator 3, 10min

5pm: Commentator 4, 10min

5.10pm: Response / Brief Discussion with commentators, 10min

5.20pm: General Questions – moderated by Maks Del Mar, 10min

**Please note this event will be taking place online and joining instructions will be sent to all registrants on the day

H/T @ArsScripta

September 7, 2021

Newly Published: Robert F. Barsky, Clamouring For Legal Protection: What the Great Books Teach Us About People Fleeing From Persecution (Bloomsbury, 2021)

Newly published:


Robert F, Barsky, Clamouring For Legal Protection: What the Great Books Teach Us About People Fleeing From Persecution (Bloomsbury, 2021). 

Here from the publisher's website is a description of the book's contents.


In this novel approach to law and literature, Robert Barsky delves into the canon of so-called Great Books, and discovers that many beloved characters therein encounter obstacles similar to those faced by contemporary refugees and undocumented persons.

The struggles of Odysseus, Moses, Aeneas, Dante, Satan, Dracula and Alice in Wonderland, among many others, provide surprising insights into current discussions about those who have left untenable situations in their home countries in search of legal protection.

Law students, lawyers, social scientists, literary scholars and general readers who are interested in learning about international refugee law and immigration regulations in home and host countries will find herein a plethora of details about border crossings, including those undertaken to flee pandemics, civil unrest, racism, intolerance, war, forced marriage, or limited opportunities in their home countries.


Robert F Barsky is Canada Research Chair: Law, Narrative and Border Crossing (2019-20). He is Professor of Humanities and a Jointly Appointed Faculty Member in the Law School at Vanderbilt University. 

The publisher is offering a discount for orders placed online. See below.

Discount Price: £60 / $80

Order online at www.bloomsbury.com  – use the code UG8 for UK orders and HARTUS20 for US orders to get 20% off!


Conklin on Why Judges Should Refrain From Pop Culture References In Judicial Opinions @AngeloState

Michael Conklin, Angelo State University, Business Law, has published 'Be a Lot Cooler if You Didn’t': Why Judges Should Refrain from Pop Culture References in Judicial Opinions. Here is the abstract.
The use of pop culture references in judicial opinions—sometimes referred to as “dropping pop”—is unfortunately a growing trend. This Article presents the 2021 Briseño v. Henderson opinion as an illustration of the harms of unnecessary pop culture references. It provides a thorough analysis of the numerous ways in which pop culture references in judicial opinions are ill advised. It also addresses the arguments in favor of the practice, providing counterarguments to show why any purported benefits are exaggerated and far outweighed by the downsides. Then advice for judges, including best practices, is given. The Article concludes by providing suggested language for the Model Code of Judicial Conduct regarding pop culture references. Pop culture references are often misunderstood, which can lead to a misunderstanding of the case. Traditionally marginalized populations are particularly vulnerable to this, as they often do not share the same exposure to pop culture as predominantly white judges. They result in litigants believing that the judge was arbitrary, irreverent, and making fun of their plight. They blur the lines between fictional entertainment and the real-life legal system. They are perhaps indicative of a judge who is focusing on self-promotion at the cost of sound legal analysis. And they can be distracting, especially when the reader finds the reference offensive. Any net benefit gained by the entertainment value some experience from a pop culture reference is offset by the confusion and disagreement by others. And pop culture references are not necessary to create an engaging opinion. These references can serve as “seductive details” drawing attention away from the legal holding. They are likely not as persuasive as some advocates claim, and even if they were, persuasion is not a primary goal of a judicial opinion. The general public may find pop culture references in judicial opinions interesting, but this likely comes at the cost of diminished respect for the judicial system.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

September 2, 2021

Smith and Peterson on Big Data Comes For Textualism: The Use and Abuse of Corpus Linguistics in Second Amendment Litigation

Mark W. Smith, Oxford University Department of Pharmacology; The King's College, and Dan M. Peterson, Independent, have published Big Data Comes for Textualism: The Use and Abuse of Corpus Linguistics in Second Amendment Litigation. Here is the abstract.
Some scholars, judges, and advocates have recently urged that legal corpus linguistics, a methodology that uses computerized searches of large volumes of texts known as “corpora,” can determine the original meaning of constitutional provisions. More particularly, certain of these advocates have argued that corpus linguistics searches of Founding era corpora prove that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms protects only a collective, militia right and not an individual, private right to arms, contrary to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of that amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S 570 (2008). In this article, we argue that relying on corpus linguistics to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment suffers from severe conceptual and practical difficulties. One of the most fundamental flaws concerns the central methodological assumption of corpus linguistics—the “frequency hypothesis”—which posits that the most frequent meaning of a word or phrase returned by a corpus search should be the meaning adopted for purposes of constitutional interpretation. Even if the phrase “bear arms” most frequently appears in a military context, that does not mean that the constitutional language excludes an individual right to bear arms for self-defense and other private purposes. Military and militia references were more likely to appear in public discussions of the right to bear arms simply because they were more “newsworthy” than the mundane acts of ordinary people carrying a firearm for hunting or defense, which would rarely be recorded. Contemporary examples, including references by the Founders themselves, show that the right to “bear arms” included protection of an individual right as well as furthering a well-regulated militia. In addition, corpus linguistics suffers from serious problems concerning the composition of the corpora, which are biased in favor of elite language usage and are critically incomplete, missing some of the key texts that historians and legal scholars have long relied upon in discerning the Second Amendment’s meaning. Use of legal corpus linguistics also raises serious practical difficulties in actual constitutional litigation, including the absence of the usual safeguards applicable to expert or “scientific” evidence. In the end, the counting of words resulting from a corpus search cannot overcome the history and traditions at the time of the Founding that allowed free carry and use of firearms, and the core conception by the Founders that self-protection with arms is a pre-existing right that cannot be taken away from the individual by any act of civil society.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

September 1, 2021

For One Day Only: Law, Space, Matter, September 9-10, 2021: A 24 Hour-Virtual Workshop For a Non-Traveling Global Audience

 

FOR ONE DAY ONLY

Law, Space, Matter

9-10 September 2021

 

A 24-hour virtual workshop for a non-travelling global audience.

 

Organised by:

  • Institute for Interdisciplinary Legal Studies - lucernaiuris, University of Lucerne
  • Centre for Law, Arts and the Humanities, The Australian National University
  • Institute of the Humanities and Global Cultures, University of Virginia
  • Wits Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Witwatersrand
  • Faculty of Law, University of Roma Tre
  • Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki
  • Institute for International Law and the Humanities, University of Melbourne

 

 

Overview

 

Recent years have witnessed a new wave of critical approaches to (re-)thinking the entanglements of law, space and matter. From David Delaney’s ‘nomosphere’ and Peter Sloterdijk’s ‘nomotop’ to Andreas Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos’s ‘lawscapes’ and Daniela Gandorfer’s ‘matterphorics’ – scholars working in diverse theoretical traditions have rejuvenated discussions on the substance and materiality of law, and opened new perspectives on the reciprocal materialisation of the legal and the socio-spatial.

 

Matter matters – all the more in our present age of crises and challenges, which press us towards a renewed critical reckoning with the relation(s) between law, place and space, between spatiolegal representations, discourses, and materialities. In this context, we turn again to “the complex, shifting, and always interpretable blendings of words and worlds” (Delaney) in which law is embedded and unfolds.

 

For One Day Only brings together a global community of thinkers, scholars and artists for 24 hours of conversations on the moment we are living through and the future we want. Hosted by an international consortium of research centres spanning four continents, the workshop sessions will roll around the world from Canberra and Johannesburg, through Rome, Helsinki and Lucerne, to Virginia and Melbourne. Together, we will showcase cutting-edge work that captures the stakes of critical, theoretical and socio-legal enquiry into the spatialisation of law and the legalisation of space, and which poses fresh challenges for thinking about law’s depth and character, its politics and social resonances.

 

 

Programme

 

* All times listed below are in Central European Summer Time. Local times are given in brackets, where these differ. *

 

Thursday 9 September, 04.00-06.00 (12.00-14.00 Eastern Australian Time)

Market/Place: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum

Hosted by the Centre for Law, Arts and the Humanities, The Australian National University

Speakers: Margaret Davies, Jessica Whyte, Chris Griffiths, Desmond Manderson

Register here

 

Thursday 9 September, 07.30-08.30 (08.30-09.30 East European Summer Time)

Law, Politics and Emptiness

Hosted by the Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki                                                                                                                                             

Speakers: Panu Minkkinen, Dorota Gozdecka

Register here

 

Thursday 9 September, 09.30-11.00

Algorithms and the End(s) of Law

Hosted by the Faculty of Law, University of Roma Tre

Speakers: Emanuele Conte, Giancarlo De Cataldo, Fiona Macmillan, Teresa Numerico

Register here

 

Thursday 9 September, 12.00-14.00

In the Eyes of the Law

Hosted by the Institute for Interdisciplinary Legal Studies - lucernaiuris, University of Lucerne

Speakers: Carey Young, Desmond Manderson, Steven Howe

Register here

 

Thursday 9 September, 16.00-18.00 (10.00-12.00 US Eastern Time)

Immunity and Quarantine: The Biopolitics of Space-Making in Pandemics

Hosted by the Institute of the Humanities and Global Cultures, University of Virginia & Wits Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Witwatersrand

Speakers: Sarah Nuttall, Ranjana Khanna, Debjani Ganguly

Register here

 

Friday 10 September, 01.00-02.30 (09.00-10.30 Eastern Australian Time)

In and Out of Place

Hosted by the Institute for International Law and the Humanities, University of Melbourne

Speakers: Shaun McVeigh, Jo Commins, Alex Dela Cruz, Caitlin Murphy, Danish Sheikh, Valeria Vazquez Guevara

Register here

 

Full programme details available here. For enquiries, please contact Steven Howe (steven.howe@unilu.ch).

 

 

Call For Papers, Special Issue: Towards Digitization of Cultural Practices and Contents: Issues, Limits, and Legal tools (Guest Editors, Marie-Sophie de Clippele and Anne Wagner) (International Journal for the Semiotics of Law) @AnneWag26082949

 



Call for Papers
Special issue

Towards digitization of cultural practices and contents

Issues, limits and legal tools

 

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law https://www.springer.com/journal/11196

 

Guest Editors: Marie-Sophie de Clippele & Anne Wagner

 

 

It is often claimed that developing a digital strategy to improve access to and participation in culture and cultural heritage increases democratization and citizens’ sense of collective belonging. As a result, and particularly in the COVID-19 context, many cultural institutions, both public and private, have accelerated the development of tools for accessing and digitally disseminating their cultural content: online access to collections, visits to museums or 3D virtual sites, visits to entirely online exhibitions, online access to cultural and musical performances, reading of tales via video... Furthermore, participatory digital cultural practices have also increased exponentially to integrate users in the creation, use and transmission of culture and cultural heritage (methods of crowd sourcing, storytelling, citizen science...), notably through digital tools linked to artificial intelligence and virtual reality.

 

However, this digital craze, already underway before the pandemic, is not without legal difficulties, particularly in the field of intellectual property and data protection, and also raises ethical questions. With the dematerialization of cultural practices and content some legal principles can constitute obstacles, while others can facilitate digitization and access to such content and practices. Both mechanisms in public law – legislation and case law ensuring a balance between rights and interests, such as those of the author, the owner, the user, the personal data subject or controller; participatory governance measures; development of direct and indirect cultural policies… – , as well as tools in private law – licence contracts; property rights; control and access mechanisms such as Digital Rights Management (DRM); legal governance models and structures, etc. must be examined for an inclusive access to dematerialized cultural practices and content. Nevertheless, the notion of access itself should be examined, including from an ethical point of view: the desire to grant universal access to certain dematerialized cultural content may come up against certain rights and interests, particularly those of the communities of origin, a fortiori when it comes to digitizing sacred objects. Following a decolonial approach to the concepts of access and dematerialization, thought should be given to the inclusion of these communities in the digitization process as well as in the access policies of these digital contents.

 

The aim of this Special Issue is therefore to question the dematerialization movement from a legal point of view, by asking within what limits, under what conditions and with what legal tools cultural practices and contents can develop in the context of digitization of cultural practices and contents.

 

Three axes are to be explored in this Special Issue, in which more concrete thematic ideas are listed, while being open to other aspects within these three axes:


1.              Digitization and intellectual property

 

What are the issues, limits and tools in intellectual property law in the face of digitized cultural practices and content?

 

-    The evolving enforcement of intellectual property rights with the expansion of digitized cultural practices and content;

-  The impact of Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the digital single market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC on intellectual property regimes, in particular with regard to the reproduction right of works of visual art, as well as with regard to other exceptions to the rights of reproduction or communication to the public;

-  New licensing practices for the use of new digital tools (co-created digital files, 3D scanning, virtual reality games...);

-   The scope of the exceptions to copyright and related rights for user-generated content with cultural creations (quotation, parody, etc.) and the adequacy of remuneration rights

-  The issue of restitution of cultural goods and their digitization: the intellectual (and material) rights on these goods.

 

2.              Digitization, cultural platforms and data protection

 

What are the issues, limits and tools in platform law and data protection law in the face of digitized cultural practices and content?

 

-  The role of cultural platforms in guaranteeing access while respecting the principle of cultural diversity (regulation of private cultural platforms, development and accessibility of cultural platforms managed directly by the public authorities, particularly for education and research, etc.);

-  The role of new intermediaries in cultural mediation (for ex. risks of new gatekeepers such as streaming platforms for accessing cultural content);

-  Data protection of digital cultural content, especially in the case of user-generated content.

 

3.              3. Digitization, participatory governance and virtual communities

 

What are the issues, limits and tools of participatory governance in the face of digitized cultural practices and content?

 

-  The right(s), interest(s) and/or responsibility(s) for users of these cultural practices;

-  Virtual communities vs. communities of origin;

-   The principles of participatory governance for these dematerialized cultural practices and contents;

-  The challenge of the (digital) commons (need for new open licenses, etc.);

-  The role of public authorities in ensuring active participation in culture.

 

Please send your abstract of 500 words (max.) to Marie-Sophie DE CLIPPELE (marie- sophie.declippele@usaintlouis.be) by 25 February 2022 with decisions made by 25 March 2022. Papers should be no longer than 15,000 words. The deadline for submitting full papers is 25 August 2022.


 

Appel à proposition Numéro Spécial

Vers une numérisation des pratiques et des contenus culturels Enjeux, limites et outils juridiques

 

Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique https://www.springer.com/journal/11196

 

Directeurs invités : Marie-Sophie de Clippele & Anne Wagner

 

L’importance de développer une stratégie numérique pour améliorer l’accès et la participation à la culture et au patrimoine culturel est souvent mise en avant pour augmenter la démocratisation et le sentiment d’appartenance collective des citoyens. Dès lors et dans le contexte particulier du COVID-19, nombre d’institutions culturelles, publiques et privées, ont accéléré le développement d’outils d’accès et de diffusion numérique à leurs contenus culturels : accès en ligne aux collections, visite de musées ou de sites virtuels en 3D, visite d’expositions entièrement en ligne, accès en ligne aux représentations culturelles et musicales, lecture de contes par vidéo... Par ailleurs, les pratiques culturelles numériques participatives ont également accru de manière exponentielle pour intégrer les usagers dans la création, l’usage et la transmission de la culture et du patrimoine culturel (méthodes de crowd sourcing, storytelling, citizen science…), notamment par des outils numériques liés à l’intelligence artificielle et à la réalité virtuelle.

 

Toutefois, cet engouement numérique, déjà entamé avant la pandémie, ne va pas sans poser de difficultés sur le plan juridique, notamment dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle et de la protection des données, tout en suscitant quelques interrogations éthiques. La dématérialisation des pratiques et des contenus culturels interroge en effet nombre de principes juridiques, qui peuvent tantôt constituer des obstacles, tantôt faciliter la numérisation et l’accès à ces contenus et pratiques. Ainsi, tant des mécanismes en droit public – législation et jurisprudence veillant à équilibrer les droits et les intérêts, comme ceux de l’auteur, du propriétaire, de l’usager ou du sujet ou contrôleur des données privées ; mesures de gouvernance participative ; développement des politiques culturelles directes et indirectes , que des outils en droit privé – contrats de licence ; droits de propriété ; dispositifs de contrôle et d’accès, comme la gestion numérique des droits ; modèles et structures juridiques de gouvernance… - participent à l’enjeu de l’accès aux pratiques et contenus culturels dématérialisés. Néanmoins, la notion d’accès elle-même invite à réfléchir à ses contours, en ce compris sur le plan éthique : la volonté d’ouvrir l’accès de manière universelle à certains contenus culturels dématérialisés peut se heurter à certains droits et intérêts, notamment ceux des communautés d’origine, a fortiori lorsqu’il s’agit d’objets sacrés numérisés. Suivant une approche décoloniale quant aux concepts d’accès et de dématérialisation, cela implique une réflexion quant à l’inclusion de ces communautés dans le processus de numérisation ainsi que dans les politiques d’accès de ces contenus numériques.

 

Le présent appel à propositions a ainsi pour objet d’interroger le mouvement de dématérialisation sur le plan du droit, en se demandant dans quelles limites, à quelles


conditions et avec quels outils juridiques les pratiques et contenus culturels peuvent se développer dans un contexte de numérisation.

 

Trois axes sont explorés dans le cadre de ce Numéro Spécial, dans lesquels sont listées des idées de thématiques plus concrètes, tout en étant ouvert à d’autres aspects au sein de ces trois axes :

 

 

 

1.     Numérisation et propriété intellectuelle

 

Quels enjeux, limites et outils en droit de la propriété intellectuelle face à des pratiques et contenus culturels numérisés ?

 

-          L’évolution de l’application des droits de la propriété intellectuelle avec l’expansion des pratiques et contenus culturels dématérialisés ;

-          L’impact de la Directive (UE) 2019/790 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 17 avril 2019 sur le droit d'auteur et les droits voisins dans le marché unique numérique et modifiant les directives 96/9/CE et 2001/29/CE sur les régimes de propriété intellectuelle, notamment quant au droit à l’image des œuvres d’art visuel, ainsi qu’eu égard à d’autres exceptions aux droits de reproduction ou de communication au public ;

-          Les nouvelles pratiques de licences pour utiliser de nouveaux outils numériques (fichiers numériques co-créés, scan 3D, jeux dans la réalité virtuelle…) ;

-          La portée des exceptions au droit d'auteur et aux droits voisins pour les contenus générés par les utilisateurs avec des créations culturelles (citation, parodie, etc.) et l'adéquation des droits de rémunération ;

-          L’enjeu de la restitution de biens culturels et de leur numérisation : les droits intellectuels et matériels distincts sur ces biens.

 

2.     Numérisation, plateformes culturelles et protection des données

 

Quels enjeux, limites et outils en droit des plateformes et en droit de la protection des données face à des pratiques et contenus culturels numérisés ?

 

-          Le rôle des plateformes culturelles pour garantir un accès en respectant le principe de diversité culturelle (régulation de plateformes culturelles privées, conditions de développement et d’accessibilité des plateformes culturelles gérées directement par les pouvoirs publics, notamment pour l’enseignement et la recherche…) ;

-          Le rôle des nouveaux intermédiaires dans la médiation culturelle (par exemple, les risques liés à l'apparition de nouveaux gardiens, tels que les plateformes de diffusion en continu, pour l'accès aux contenus culturels). ;

-          La protection des données des contenus culturels numériques, notamment en cas de

user-generated content.

 

3.     Numérisation, gouvernance participative et communautés virtuelles

 

Quels enjeux, limites et outils de gouvernance participative face à des pratiques et contenus culturels numérisés ?


-          Le(s) droit(s), intérêt(s) et/ou responsabilité(s) pour les usagers de ces pratiques culturelles ;

-          Communautés virtuelles vs. communautés d’origine ;

-          Les principes de gouvernance participative pour ces pratiques et contenus culturels dématérialisés ;

-          L’enjeu des communs (numériques) (besoin de nouvelles licences etc.) ;

-          Le rôle des pouvoirs publics pour garantir la participation active dans la culture.

 

Veuillez envoyer votre résumé de 500 mots (max.) à Marie-Sophie DE CLIPPELE (marie- sophie.declippele@usaintlouis.be) avant le 25 février 2022, les décisions étant prises pour le 25 mars 2022 au plus tard. Les articles ne doivent pas dépasser 15 000 mots. La date limite de soumission des articles de fonds est fixée au 25 août 2022 au