Legal Theory Commons^™

Comment On James Boyd White's Book "Living Speech" (Princeton 2006), Yofi Tirosh

Yofi Tirosh

Professor White introduces a new way for thinking about speech; a new measure for assessing it. He invites us to use speech carefully and responsibly, in what he calls “living speech.” Caring about the value of speech is not merely an aesthetic endeavor. As meaning making creatures, as “centers of meaning,” we should know how to recognize the speech that is essential to our humanness. Because living speech is “what enables any of us to be a person in the first place” (16).

How can we recognize living speech? The short answer that White gives us, which is indeed poetic …

A Name Of One's Own: Gender And Symbolic Legal Personhood In The European Court Of Human Rights, Yofi Tirosh

Yofi Tirosh

Legal regulation of surnames provides a fascinating venue for examining how women negotiate their interests of autonomy and of stable personhood vis a vis a patriarchal naming structure. This is a study of 25 years of adjudication of surnames and personal status at the European Court of Human Rights. It explores the intricate ways in which legal norms governing surnames (and their judicial interpretation) sustain, shape, and reify social institutions such as gender, family, and citizenship.

As a pan European court, the adjudication of the ECHR operates within the framework of human rights. The universal characteristics of human rights principles …

Honest-Services Fraud: A (Vague) Threat To Millions Of Blissfully Unaware (And Non-Culpable) American Workers, Julie R. O'Sullivan

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The author believes that statute 18 U.S.C. § 1346 is unconstitutionally vague, at least as applied to cases in which employees of private entities are prosecuted for depriving their employers of a right to their honest services (so-called “private cases”). Objections to vagueness rest on due process. “Vagueness may invalidate a criminal law for either of two independent reasons. First, it may fail to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits; second, it may authorize and even encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” The Supreme Court’s vagueness precedents do not provide much …