A glimpse at Empires, Diasporas, and Indigeneity

I am very sorry that I attended but one complete session of the Baldy Center’s symposium Friday entitled “Thinking Beyond the Nation-state: Empires, Diasporas, and Indigeneity”.  As I slipped into the Center at 2:20PM, my first impression of the speaker was that she must have had five too many cups of coffee because she was breathlessly stumbling over the sentences in her presentation and purposefully skipping slides in a bizarre race to the end, although I wasn’t sure whom or what she was racing.  Since I had missed the beginning I didn’t pressure myself to take notes but perused the schedule instead. Oh I see… no wonder she’s rushing. They were an hour behind schedule. This is what happens when you line up twenty scholars to present between 9am and 5:30pm. Please tell us in 15 minutes or less  what you have dedicated the last year or so of your life to.

Michael Giudice, “Analytical Jurisprudence and Contingency,” Part 2

more about “Michael Giudice, “Analytical Jurispru…“, posted with vodpod

 

Michael Giudice, “Analytical Jurisprudence and Contingency,” Part 1

more about “Michael Giudice, “Analytical Jurispru…“, posted with vodpod

 

Giudice on Analytical Jurisprudence and Contingency

Well.

Michael Giudice (joo-DEE-chay) gave a modestly-attended talk today entitled Analytic Jurisprudence and Contingency. The description given on the Baldy Calendar gives those who were not in attendance a quite accurate sense of what it was like to be at the talk. Giudice, a visiting professor of philosophy from York University, presented a yet-unpublished paper, which drew a lively debate afterwards on what is LAW. The question of WHAT IS LAW is not something that most people in law school grapple with on a regular basis, but analytical jurisprudists (did I just make up that term?) think about this question a lot. One might even say that this is the main thing that they think about. They not only think about it, they try to answer it. This is what defines who they are.

There is something else that analytical jurisprudists have in common: they all have read the works of H. L. A. Hart (those who came after Hart of course, the discipline goes back quite a bit beyond him) who is one of the most influential writers in the modern field. Giudice is no exception. And the most fun thing to do for someone in a field is critique – or for those less confrontational types, have a dialogue with – its most influential writer.  Hart and others built careers on figuring out how to describe the law in universal and neutral terms so that one would know Law when they saw it. And also, so that the concepts and vocabulary they developed could be transferable (could ‘travel’) to other places. His three commonalities – or at least what Giudice kept coming back to – were the elements of “coercion”, “morality”, and “social rules”.  If Martians came down to Earth and asked what this thing called ‘law’ is, it would be more useful to them to describe it in terms of coercion, morality, and social rules than, say – to dismissively gesture towards the Constitution and turn back to doing homework.

Frederick Schauer, “Can Bad Science Be Good Evidence? Neuroscience-Based Lie Detection” Part 3

more about “Frederick Schauer, “Can Bad Science B…“, posted with vodpod

 

Frederick Schauer, “Can Bad Science Be Good Evidence? Neuroscience-Based Lie Detection” Part 2

more about “Frederick Schauer, “Can Bad Science B…“, posted with vodpod

 

Conference on Advertising and the Law, University at Buffalo Law School, Part 4

Re-posted from Rebecca Tushnet’s 43(B)log, courtesy of the author, Rebecca Tushnet:

William O’Barr, Duke University, Alternative Forms of Advertising Regulation: Comparative Notes from China, India, Brazil, and the US

From most people’s perspectives, law involves writing a will and buying a house, little more. The caselaw doesn’t touch ordinary people’s lives or make up the stuff of law in practice.

Comparative perspective from big countries. China: very highly regulated; India and US: moderate; Brazil: low. Primary methods of regulation are very different. China: government. India: cultural taboos. US: Industry tries very hard to preempt government regulation through various self-regulatory bodies, especially for TV ads, staying one step ahead of regulation. Brazil: the ad agency decides what to do.

Pepsi makes a pattern ad they’d like to use all over the world, but will have to be reshot in various ways for local regulations and ambiance. He showed a popular Pepsi ad with Michael J. Fox; Chinese censors didn’t like it because it showed a number of inappropriate behaviors—running down a fire escape in a nonemergency situation, crossing in the middle of the street, gangs in the city, etc. Chinese version: similar dialogue, very different behavior—he crosses at a crosswalk! Chinese regulators didn’t want to show antisocial behavior. Not an isolated instance.

Frederick Schauer, “Can Bad Science Be Good Evidence? Neuroscience-Based Lie Detection” Part 1

more about “Frederick Schauer, “Can Bad Science B…“, posted with vodpod

 

Conference on Advertising and the Law, University at Buffalo Law School, Part 3

Re-posted from Rebecca Tushnet’s 43(B)log, courtesy of the author, Rebecca Tushnet:

Laura Bradford, George Mason Law: Sponsorship Confusion

Consumers would prefer more transparent information about sponsorship, but the market is underproviding because of agency and other costs. It’s becoming more and more difficult to tell advertising from organic speech—viral YouTube videos and so on. Search engine results: why do results come up first? More of an issue before Google.

Historically, we have TM owners police deceptive uses of marks. They have more incentive to watch the marketplace carefully. But seller interests in sponsorship disclosure diverge from consumer interests—an agency cost, if we are concerned with consumer welfare. The linkage of a product with a well-known brand tells a consumer that someone with a lot to lose has control over the product: Apple’s reputation sells iPods; McDonald’s reputation sells burgers. But then there’s sponsorship—95% of new product introductions are brand extensions, and cobranding is also on the rise, allowing each brand access to the other’s customers. McDonald’s and Disney market Happy Meals that promote movies and food.

Conference on Advertising and the Law, University at Buffalo Law School, Part 2

Re-posted from Rebecca Tushnet’s 43(B)log, courtesy of the author, Rebecca Tushnet:

Sonia Katyal, Fordham Law: Anti-branding and Stealth Marketing: The Love that Dare Not Speak its Name

Wayne’s World (1992): Mike Myers & Dana Carvey are confronted with stardom when their cable access program is bought up. They’re entreated to allow their corporate sponsor on the show, and reminded the contract requires this. Wayne the character resists, but while openly displaying a Pizza Hut box and snacking on Doritos. Garth agrees while wearing head-to-toe Reebok and drinking Pepsi. Watch it. They’re disavowing and calling attention to it, and laughing all the way to the bank.