Kahn on The Mask Wars and Social Control: Lessons From the 1927 Unveiling Campaign in Soviet Uzbekistan @CWSL_News @cwsl_ilj

Robert Kahn, University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota), is publishing The Mask Wars and Social Control: Lessons from the 1927 Unveiling Campaign in Soviet Uzbekistan in California Western International Law Journal (2022) Here is the abstract.

During the late 1920s Soviet authorities embarked on the hujum, a campaign to encourage women in Uzbekistan to unveil. As with the COVID mask wars, the hujum was highly politicized. For some, the hujum was a campaign of personal liberation; for others it was an attempt by the Soviet Union to impose imperial control over its Muslim subjects. To explore the relevance of the hujum for our mask wars, this essay looks at two accounts of the hujum. Douglas Northrop’s Veiled Empire: Gender and Power in Stalinist Central Asia views the hujum as a failed attempt to impose Soviet values on an unwilling Uzbek population. Has the COVID mask, like the veil, become a symbol of failed state overreaching? Marianne Kamp, in the New Woman in Uzbekistan: Islam, Modernity and Communism (2006), sees the hujum as trapping Uzbek women between supporting the Soviets and following patriarchal veiling norms. Have COVID masking campaigns likewise stripped us of our agency? Taken together, Northrop and Kamp’s accounts help shift the debate over COVID mask wearing away from mask authoritarianism toward a world where people should be free, most of the time, to decide whether or not to cover their face.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Bandes and Feigenson on Virtual Trials: Necessity, Invention, and the Evolution of the Courtroom @BandesSusan @DePaulLaw @QuinnipiacU

Susan A. Bandes, DePaul College of Law, and Neal Feigenson, Quinnipiac University School of Law, are publishingV Vrtual Trials: Necessity, Invention, and the Evolution of the Courtroom in volume 69 of the Buffalo Law Review. Here is the abstract.

Faith in the legitimating power of the live hearing or trial performed at the place of justice is at least as old as the Iliad. In public courtrooms, litigants appear together, evidence is presented, and decisions are openly and formally pronounced. The bedrock belief in the importance of the courtroom is rooted in common law, constitutional guarantees, and venerated tradition, as well as in folk knowledge. Courtrooms are widely believed to imbue adjudication with “a mystique of authenticity and legitimacy.” The covid-19 pandemic, however, by compelling legal systems throughout the world to turn from physical courtrooms to virtual ones, disrupts and calls into question longstanding assumptions about the conditions essential for the delivery of justice. These questions are not merely tangential – they implicate many of the core beliefs undergirding the U.S. system of justice, including the whole notion of “a day in court” as the promise of a synchronous, physically situated event with a live audience. Rather than regard virtual courts as just an unfortunate expedient, temporary or not, we use them as an occasion to reflect on the essential goals of the justice system, and to re-examine courtroom practices in light of those goals. We draw on social science to help identify what can be justified after the myths are pared away. Focusing on three interrelated aspects of traditional courts – the display and interpretation of demeanor evidence; the courtroom as a physical site of justice; and the presence of the public – we prompt a reassessment of what our legal culture should value most in courtroom adjudication and what we are willing to trade off to achieve it.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Toussaint on Blackness as Fighting Words @EtienneT_Esq

Etienne Toussaint, UDC School of Law, is publishing Blackness as Fighting Words at 106 Va. L. Rev. Online (2020). Here is the abstract.

The resurgence of worldwide protests by activists of the Movement for Black Lives (BLM) has ushered a global reckoning with the meaning of this generation’s rallying cry – “Black Lives Matter.” As citizens emblazon their streets with this expression in massive artistic murals, the Trump administration has responded with the militarized policing of non-violent public demonstrations, revealing not merely a disregard for public safety, but far worse, a concerted dismantling of protestors’ First Amendment rights. Nevertheless, BLM protests have persisted. Accordingly, this Essay considers the implications of this generation’s acclamation of Black humanity amidst the social tensions exposed during the era of COVID-19. What does the Trump administration’s militarized response to BLM protests mean in a world mutilated by the scars of racial oppression, a wound laid bare by America’s racially biased, aggressive, and supervisory culture of policing? In response, much in the way Cheryl Harris revealed Whiteness as Property, this Essay suggests and defends Black identity itself, or Blackness – whether articulated by the pure speech of racial justice activists who affirm Black humanity, or embodied by the symbolic speech of Black bodies assembled in collective dissent in the public square – as “fighting words” in the consciousness of America, a type of public speech unprotected by the Constitution. The very utterance of the phrase “Black Lives Matter” tends to incite imminent violence and unbridled rage from police in city streets across America. Discussions of “Black Lives Matter” by pundits conjure images of subversion, disorder, and looting, the racialized narratives of social unrest commonly portrayed by the media. Yet, the words “Black Lives Matter” and the peaceful assembly of Black protestors also encapsulate the fire of righteous indignation burning in the hearts of minoritized citizens. This dynamic reflects unresolved tensions in the First Amendment’s treatment of race relations in America. Even more, it exposes the role of policing in smothering the Constitutional rights of Black and Brown citizens. This Essay provides three contributions to the ongoing discourse on policing in the United States. First, it reveals how unresolved racial tensions in the First Amendment – focusing specifically on ambiguities in the fighting words doctrine – perpetuate the racially biased, aggressive, and supervisory culture of American policing. Second, it analyzes how such unresolved racial tensions cast a dark shadow over the liberty of Black and Brown citizens who experience racism at the hands of police officers, yet avoid acts of protest for fear of bodily harm or arrest. Third, it illuminates the embeddedness of racism in American policing culture, more generally; a culture that not only constructs and reconstitutes the racial social order, but also degrades the dignity of Black and Brown citizens. Collectively, these insights lend support toward demands for police abolition from BLM activists. As this Essay concludes, until we as a nation wrestle with the unresolved racial subtext of modern policing – a racist culture woven into law that not only silences the legitimate protests of minoritized citizens in violation of their First Amendment rights, but also rationalizes callous violence at the hands of law enforcement – Black America will remain a peril to the veil of white supremacy that looms over the American constitutional order.

The full text is not available from SSRN.

Savage on COVID-1619: A Brief History of Racism @Dr_Audra_Savage @EmoryLaw

Audra Savage, Emory University Law School,has published COVID-1619: A Brief History of Racism. Here is the abstract.

Racism is the use of Black people to achieve the goals of white people without regard to the personhood, humanity, and agency of Blacks. This essay explores this definition of racism by tracing the influence of the twin institutions of law and religion in creating and maintaining the slave system in early colonial America. The essay then demonstrates the pernicious and persistent nature of racism by mapping this definition onto the current COVID-19 pandemic and its disproportionate impact on Black Americans.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Simon-Kerr on Unmasking Demeanor @UConnLaw

Julia Ann Simon-Kerr, University of Connecticut School of Law, has published Unmasking Demeanor. Here is the abstract.

Demeanor is seen as a critical tool for assessing credibility in U.S. courtrooms. From the Confrontation Clause to the Immigration and Nationality Act to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the common law of credibility, the U.S. legal system gives priority and deference to assessing demeanor in the courtroom. Evidence law instructs that we must see a witness’s whole face in order to effectively “read” demeanor. Yet, a growing number of jurisdictions will require all participants in the courtroom to wear masks covering the nose, mouth and chin in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19. This essay canvasses the legal impediments to mask-wearing by witnesses. It argues that these legal obstacles are surmountable, and that this mask-wearing moment offers a unique opportunity to reassess the role of demeanor in credibility assessments. Focusing on demeanor forces witnesses to perform credibility, a performance that does not necessarily bring us closer to the truth.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Call For Papers: Three Special Issues of the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law

Call For Papers, Three Special Issues

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE SEMIOTICS OF LAW & COMPARATIVE LEGILINGUISTICS

COVID-19 INFODEMIC – BETWEEN LAW, ETHICS AND FAKE NEWS

Guest Editors: Anne WAGNER, Aleksandra MATULEWSKA & Sarah MARUSEK

The 2020 pandemic of Covid-19 virus struck the globalized world unexpectedly, resulting in
the misleading predictions of fatalities information chaos and fake news. Aware of the
consequential impact of distortions and half-truths, the World Health Organization stresses
that societies suffer not only as a direct result of disease, social-distancing but also overabundance
of information that makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and
reliable guidance. The spread of rumors and misinformation has been possible also due to the
prevalence of distance communication methods which enable publication of anything without
any limits or peer review as verification. Such pieces of news, if skillfully posted, may reach
enormous numbers of people causing harm and unpredictable consequences.

The important questions one may ask focus on the following topics:
1. Journalism ethics – in the light of the need to catch attention of readers numerous
journals start posting and publishing unverified and misleading materials,
2. The role of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Tencent, Tiktok and
others in limiting or spreading misinformation,
3. Hate speech and cyberbullying connected with pandemic and its effects on society,
economy, politics, etc.
4. Cyberattacks connected with Covid-19 (Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic,
WHO has seen a dramatic increase in the number of cyberattacks directed at its
staff, and email scams targeting the public at large, analogously platforms made
available to teachers and other sectors such as ZOOM have been hacked),
5. Ostracism directed at people who got infected and unconsciously spread the
disease onto others,
6. Legal means of combating fake news, hate speech, cyberbullying,
7. Stereotyping and deviant community creation as a result of stereotypes,
8. Image manipulation,
9. Other semiotic aspects of communication during pandemic,
10. Imaging China as the first country who detected the infected people,
11. Imaging other countries hit by the virus,
12. Imaging political parties involved in decision-making processes connected with
counteracting the pandemic,
13. Political discourse – modes of reporting infections, disease, asking for help,
solidarity, social distancing,
14. Imagining artistic means to express concern, solidarity and hope.
Our aims, with these 3 important Special Issues, are (1) to provide an international
interdisciplinary forum of thought in these scientific fields where linguistic and legal interests
converge, (2) to facilitate integration between linguists, semioticians, computer scientists,
medical experts and lawyers from all around the world, (3) to demonstrate a broader overview
of Covid-19 invading both our personal and professional spaces, and (4) to show the various
political, legal and medical measures put in place to combat this invisible scourge.

- 2 Special Issues for International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, each of which can
comprise 14 papers of no more than 30 pages.
- 1 Special Issue for Comparative Legilinguistics that can comprise 6 papers of no more
than 30 pages
We welcome submissions in English or French.
Send your proposal to the three of us: aleksandra.matulewska@gmail.com,
valwagnerfr@yahoo.com, and marusek@hawaii.edu.

Deadline for abstract of 300 words: 10 December 2021
Decision for inclusion: 1 February 2022
Deadline for full paper: 15 March 2022 (instructions will be sent after decision to include
papers in the special issue)

CFP: The Director's Series 2020/21 Law and Humanities In a Pandemic

CALL FOR PAPERS - The Director's Series 2020/21 Law and Humanities in a Pandemic

27th April 2020

The COVID-19 pandemic already has had a vast array of legal implications which have dramatically altered daily life. While liberal, universal rights such as liberty and privacy are being radically curtailed in the name of public health, legal responses impact upon populations in radically unequal ways. These dimensions include - but certainly are not limited to - race, gender, disability, vulnerability and social class. Legal interventions are consistently justified on the basis of science, which is assumed to be unequivocal and beyond debate. At the same time, resistance to legal action is also apparent, as rumours and conspiracy theories - like the virus itself - multiply around the globe. At the same time as public policy measures are introduced, systems of legal regulation and compliance (which were often themselves justified on the basis of public protection) are modified or suspended in the name of necessity, with no indication as to when or how they will be restored. Moreover, the relationship between law and discretion has been reshaped, and this in turn has impacted upon individuals and communities.

The aim of this series is to seek to ‘make sense’ of the wide ranging relationship between law and the pandemic through the insights of the humanities, broadly understood as the set of cultural influences which are shaping the use of law and the responses to it. Sarah Churchwell argues that ‘as this pandemic is so brutally reminding us, nothing in our society occurs in a vacuum. Everything occurs in a historical, political, economic, and cultural context, and the humanities is in the business of understanding context’. As Churchwell observes, ‘the pandemic has stripped away all our usual contexts, and in so doing it has made much more visible, and much more urgent, what it is that we do when we need to be human’.

Law is a vitally important component of that context and it warrants close attention. It forms an integral part of the challenge of ‘being human’ and, in turn, law can be illuminated through a turn to the humanities, whether it be history, political theory, literary analysis, philosophy, gender studies, film theory or cultural studies (and that list is far from exhaustive). In an effort at understanding the context of the pandemic, scholars at all career stages and across disciplinary boundaries are invited to contribute to a series of ‘work in progress’ seminars at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies during the 2020-21 academic year. Given the uncertain and changed times for knowledge production (like all other forms of production), the format for the presentations will be flexible - remote, ‘live’, or some combination - depending upon the circumstances that we face. Innovative and experimental forms of presentation can be accommodated. Scholars from all parts of the world are welcome to contribute. Those located in the Global South are particularly encouraged, especially given the way in which the pandemic has (once again) privileged knowledge, expertise and experience from the Global North. 

The Institute of Advanced Legal Studies is itself part of the School of Advanced Study, which unites nine internationally renowned institutes in the humanities at the centre of the University of London. Together it forms the UK's national centre for the support of researchers and the promotion of research in the humanities.

A special issue proposal is planned for the publication of the output of the series. Preliminary interest has been expressed by the Editor of the Institute’s online, open access journal, Amicus Curiae. The Institute also has the capacity to publish the special issue as a hard copy volume with the University of London Press. 

Anyone interested in contributing is invited to contact the Director of the Institute, Professor Carl Stychin, by email: carl.stychin@sas.ac.uk.  A title and abstract for proposed contributions should be submitted to the Director by 30th June 2020. The seminars will be scheduled throughout the 2020-21 academic year.

Reference

Sarah Churchwell, ‘Being Human Under Lockdown’, https://beinghumanfestival.org/being-human-under-lockdown/

Download the Call For Papers (PDF)