Critical Analysis of Law / Globalization Workshop

Critical Analysis of Law Workshop and Globalization, Law & Justice Series

present

Professor Ruth Buchanan
Osgoode Hall Law School

End Times in the Antipodes:  Propaganda and Critique  in 'On the Beach"

Monday, June 18, 2018
12:30 - 1:45
Jackman Law Building, Room FL 219
78 Queen's Park

 

 

The Law Speaks, Speaking the Law: Jurisdiction between the Legal Academy and the Humanities

One Day Workshop

The Law Speaks, Speaking The Law

Jurisdiction between the Legal Academy and the Humanities

 

Location: Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Date: June 6, 2018

Sponsored by: The Jackman Humanities Institute, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and the Faculty of Law

Prof. Simon Stern part of amicus brief in emoluments lawsuit against President Trump

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Prof. Simon Stern
"i thought it was a great opportunity," says Associate Professor Simon Stern about getting involved in the CREW lawsuit against Trump (photo by Wajiha Rasul)

By Wajiha Rasul

Obscene intentions and corrupting effects

[Cross-posted from the OUP Blog)   The 1868 decision in R. v Hicklin created a formula for evaluating obscene works that British and American courts would use for nearly a century. Chief Justice Alexander Cockburn, in a succinct phrase that numerous courts would quote, explained that “the test of obscenity is … whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.” Hicklin is often taken as inaugurating a new era in obscenity law, shifting attention away from the author’s intentions, and towards a vague and subjective evaluation of the work’s effects.

Pages