July 6-7, 2012: Open Legislative Data in Paris: A Conference of the Third Kind with Hacktivists and Academics

Open Legislative Data in Paris: A Conference of the Third Kind with Hacktivists and Academics, is being held 6-7 July 2012, at Sciences Po, Paris, France.

[To see details about the conference, click here, and then, on the menu bar, cursor over "Conference / Conférence".]

Click here for the conference program.

Click here for archived Twitter tweets from the conference, in .csv format.

The Twitter hashtag for the conference is #oldp.

Click here for livestream of the conference.

Click here for collaborative notes from the conference.

The conference is sponsored by Regards Citoyens, Centre d’études européennes Sciences Po, and Le médialab Sciences Po.

Call for Proposals: Open Legislative Data in Paris: A Conference of the Third Kind with Hacktivists and Academics

A call for proposals — with submission deadline of 28 April 2012 — has been issued for Open Legislative Data in Paris: A Conference of the Third Kind with Hacktivists and Academics, to be held 6-7 July 2012, at Sciences Po, Paris, France.

[To see details about the conference, click here, and then, on the menu bar, cursor over "Conference / Conférence".]

The conference is sponsored by Regards Citoyens, Centre d’études européennes Sciences Po, and Le médialab Sciences Po.

According to the conference announcement, proposals are invited:

on any aspects of parliamentary studies linked to the use of computer science, be it in order to present existing projects, to explore new informatics tool, to discuss their effects, to analyze legislatures through open parliamentary data . . .

Special attention will be given to the five following areas:

1. Law tracking. How MPs change draft bill in assemblies? Is there a way of collecting and presenting systematic data about the amendments?
2. Roll call analysis. How MPs vote in assemblies? How can their votes be presented through dynamic informatics visualization? Public access to their votes being almost always partial, what is the value of focusing only on on-line accessible votes? Also, what is the added-value of software developments for the spatial theory of voting in assemblies?
3. Discourse analysis. How MPs talk in assemblies? Studies of political discourse through lexicometry computer programs have developed strong results to that question. What is therefore the impact of a greater online access to parliamentary public debate?
4. Parliamentary informatics in developing countries. What is the state of open data related to legislatures in developing countries? What is or can be the role of the on-line access to those data for improving democracy? For fighting against corruption?
5. The pros and the cons of opening data for parliaments. Can we assess concrete improvements of parliamentary democracy through the development of on-line access to their activity? On which aspect (corruption, attendance, law quality, parliamentary turnover, electoral participation…)? Conversely, what are the threats associated with increasing transparency in legislatures?

For more information, please see the announcement (on the menu bar, cursor over “Conference / Conférence” to see details).

Legal Information Programs at NCA 2009

Several programs on legal information, sponsored by the National Communication Association (NCA) Communication and Law Division, will be offered at the NCA 95th Annual Convention, to be held November 12-15, 2009 in Chicago, Illinois, USA:

• Communicating and Enacting Universal Constructions of the Law, Nov. 14, 2:00 p.m.:
• Beth Goering (Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis), Andrea Krause (Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis), What’s ‘Justice for All’? A Thematic Analysis of Legal Discourse in Popular Television Programs in the U.S. and Germany
• Abstract: ‘“Reality” judge shows have emerged as a favorite genre of daytime television programming around the world. While these programs entertain us, they also serve a didactic function, shaping expectations about legal discourse. This project, situated at the confluence of intercultural communication, communication and the law, and media criticism, provides a comparative analysis of the values related to justice and the “rules” governing courtroom interaction presented on popular television programming in the United States and Germany.’
• Sanna Ala-Kortesmaa (University of Tampere), Tuula Valikoski (University of Tampere), Finnish Prosecutors and Listening: Focus on Facts, Forget Emotions?
• Abstract: ‘The reform of judicial proceedings altered the communicational role of Finnish prosecutors. Therefore this study examines what kind of meanings Finnish prosecutors perceive to be related to the concepts of listening, which have been indicated to predict the listening behavior.The study was conducted using the Listening Concepts Inventory (LCI).The participant sample consisted of 96 prosecutors. Data were analyzed using SPSS. The findings differed somewhat from the findings of previous studies using the LCI.’
• Diana Winkelman (University of Southern California), Perelman’s Universal Audience and the International Criminal Court: A Rhetorical Analysis of US Opposition to the ICC
• Abstract: ‘This paper examines United States congressional opposition to the International Criminal Court in 2000, using Perelman’s universal audience as an analytical framework. Globalization exposes the complexities of establishing normative standards of justice as traditionally bounded national, political and legal systems intersect and conflict with one another; meanwhile a growing global legal-public sphere continues to develop. Debates over the ICC discursively negotiate collective values, seek legitimacy, and reflexively generate international legal procedures, policies and rhetorics.’
• Theresa Donofrio (University of Maryland), Jackson’s Moral Drama: Synecdochic Logic and Abstraction in the Opening Statement at the Nuremberg Trial
• Abstract: ‘This paper examines Justice Robert H. Jackson’s opening statement at the Nuremberg Trial for the insight it provides into America’s understanding of World War II and its vision for a post-war order. I argue that Jackson employed a rhetoric of abstraction that encouraged the elision of the features of the trial that challenged its legitimacy, reduced individuals to emblems, and most insidiously, erased the thumbprint of American involvement on the trial.’
• Communicative Innovations and Evolutions Concerning Law and Technology, Nov. 12, 2:00 p.m.:
• Debra Worthington (Auburn University), Paper vs. ‘Clickers’: A Test of the Biasing Effects of Electronic Data Collection
• Abstract: ‘Litigation consultants are increasingly turning to new technologies to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of their data collection. However, few studies have addressed the potential effect that these methods may have on how mock jurors respond to and process information. Using student-subjects, the primary goal of this study was to test for differential effects between data collection using traditional paper surveys and “Clickers” (radio frequency touch pads).’
• Sandra Braman (University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee), Internet RFCs as Social Policy: Network Design from a Regulatory Perspective
• Abstract: ‘Internet architecture can either support or counter laws and policy. This paper reports on research mining the Internet design discourse for ways in which technical decision-makers deal with legal and policy issues. It provides a conceptual framework for and exemplars of the variety of interactions between technical and legal decision-making and explores interactions between the discourse and the evolution of formal policy-making processes for the Internet.’
• Renee Hobbs (Temple University), How Media Literacy Educators Understand Copyright and Fair Use
  • Abstract: ‘This paper describes the development of the Code of Best Practices for Fair Use in Media Literacy Education, which was created to articulate the consensus that exists among educators about the application of fair use to the practice of media literacy education.’
• Contested Constructions of Constitutional Law, Nov. 12, 3:30 p.m.:
  • Joshua Gonzalez (Wake Forest University), Expressive Theories of Law: Un-Persuasive
    • Abstract: ‘This paper seeks to analyze the potential strengths and weaknesses of expressive theories of law, as well as their potential applicability to the communication discipline. Using Elizabeth Anderson and Richard Pildes’ “Expressive Theories of Law: A General Restatement” as a representative example of contemporary expressive theories, I conclude that, while useful as a means of explaining harmful expressions, the lack of an adequate account of persuasion makes expressive theories largely deficient.’
  • Kevin Garner (William Jewell College), Prairie Endres (Texas Tech University), Queering the Courts: Bisexual and Transgender Exclusion in Judicial Opinions
    • Abstract: ‘The cases of Lawrence v. Texas (1998) and Rowland v. Mad River Local School District (1984) are examined to explicate the ways in which the language of the United States court system frames sexual preference and sexual orientation in favor of heteronormativity. The language of the Supreme Court, as well as the language of local courts, excludes the sexual orientations of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender, and queer persons (GLBTQ) while giving preference to homosexual persons.’
  • Christopher Seaman (University of California, Santa Barbara), The problems with Miller v. California: A theoretical examination of the assumptions of obscenity law
    • Abstract: ‘The current work is a theoretical examination of the issues in both obscenity law and its application, through the use of three communication theories: the spiral of silence, the elaboration likelihood model, and structuration theory. The overall goal is to show how each theory can reveal part of the picture of how juries come to assess community standards in obscenity trials, address the underlying problems of obscenity law, and explore potential solutions.’
• Forensic Communication: Application of Communication Research to Courtroom Litigation, Nov. 14, 3:30 p.m.:
  • Abstract for This Program: ‘Virtually every discipline has a Forensic sub-area – forensics being the application of knowledge to courtroom litigation. We have forensic linguistics, forensic psychology, forensic anthropology, forensic entomology, and so on. Forensic communication is not a recognized sub-area of our discipline, however. Yet several scholars in the discipline perform expert-witness work applying communication research to legal issues in court. This panel presents examples in hopes of stimulating interest in a new sub-area of forensic communication.’
  • Michael Motley (University of California, Davis), Clarity and Connotations of Warning Labels and Instructions
    • Abstract: ‘Many lawsuits take this form: Someone gets hurt using a product; they sue; the defendant responds, in part, by claiming that the warning and/or instructions accompanying the product, if heeded, would have precluded the accident; and the clarity or likely interpretation of the warning or instructions becomes an issue. This talk will discuss how certain principles of semantics and communication can be applied to questions of message clarity.’
  • Debra Worthington (Auburn University), Bridging Disciplines: Psychology, Communication, and Hindsight De-biasing
    • Abstract: ‘The belief in a jury’s ability to render a fair and impartial verdict is a foundation of the judicial system. However, because the legal system asks jurors to render a verdict with knowledge of the original outcome of events, jurors can become susceptible to the human judgment phenomenon known as hindsight bias. This presentation explores the intersection of psychology and communication as it applies to this common cognitive heuristic identifying communicative strategies for reducing the bias.’
  • Charles Wesley Kim, Jr. (Yelman & Associates), Brian Spitzberg (San Diego State Univ), The Jurisprudence of Imprudent Behavior: Communication Challenges in Seeking Stalking Justice
    • Abstract: ‘Stalking is still a relatively new legal concept, and given that it often reflects an ongoing but unwanted relationship, it presents challenges in understanding how communication may be applied to its jurisprudential management. This presentation seeks to summarize three sets of work at the intersection between stalking research and applied communication. After a brief overview of basic stalking issues, including legal definitions and context, emphasis will focus on two complimentary lines of analysis. First, we examine the primary issues at stake in a stalking case, such communicating to judge and/or jury about issues such as intent, threat, pattern, coercion (i.e., the unwanted nature of the harassment), as well as the ‘reasonable person’ standard. Second, we explore potential communication strategies that perpetrators or victims may engage in that pose risks and opportunities for their courtroom outcomes, such as is implied by being a “bad witness” or failing evidence tests due to a lack of records of communication between the parties. Third, some of the more troublesome courtroom issues are explored, such as false victimization, abuse of judicial options as a means of harassment or counter-harassment, and the somewhat ironic implications of stalking as a ‘victim-defined’ crime.’
  • Frank Boster (Michigan State University), A Review of the Effect of Direct, Non-Physical Evidence on Trial Outcomes: Confessions and Eyewitness Testimony
    • Abstract: ‘There is a substantial literature examining confessions. One line of research considers their persuasive impact. Another considers the manner in which false confessions may be coerced. There is a parallel literature on the impact of eyewitness testimony. Because eyewitnesses have been found to be incorrect so frequently, the reasons for false identifications have been studied thoroughly as well. These studies are done primarily by psychologists. In this presentation I will summarize this literature with the purpose of making them familiar to communication scholars who, I believe, would have additional insights on these processes.’
  • Daniel Linz (University of California, Santa Barbara), Effects of Sexually Oriented Messages on Individuals and Communities
    • Abstract: ‘It is common these days to have legal conflicts between “adult entertainment” establishments (bookstores, dance clubs, etc.) and the communities in which the establishment wants to operate. This talk will discuss ways in which such litigation may be informed by research on the actual effects of these kinds of establishments on individuals and communities.’
• Top Papers in Communication and the Law, Nov. 13, 5:00 p.m.:
  • Ryan Malphurs (Texas A&M University), Could You Hear Me above the Laughter? The Role of Laughter at the U.S. Supreme Court
    • Abstract: ‘This paper expands previous studies of humor at the Court by questioning the communicative function of laughter in Supreme Court oral arguments. Using observations of nearly 40 Supreme Court arguments, audio files of 71 argument cases, and 2006-2007 transcripts of Court arguments, I argue that laughter enables lawyers and justices to negotiate the complex institutional, social, and intellectual barriers, which assists in stabilizing an argument to reach an understanding and fostering change in their decision.’
  • John Reinard (California State University, Fullerton), An Experimental Study of the Use of Voir Dire Questions to Preview Case Elements and Promote Positive Attitudes Toward Defendants
    • Abstract: ‘The influence of three types of voir dire questions was examined to test effects on ratings of defendant guilt, defendant credibility, defense attorney credibility, and prosecutor credibility. Results indicated that the use of strategic voir dire questions influenced decisions and ratings of trial participants. In particular, a main effect was produced by the use of questions requesting jurors to show empathy by reciprocating positively to the defense expressions of trust in them.’
  • Jeremiah Hickey (St. John’s University), Visions of Democracy: Partisanship, Race, Self-Government, and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation
    • Abstract: ‘This paper seeks to examine how competing assumptions concerning the nature of the communication process and competing ideological interpretations of the law contribute to the enactment of constitutional law and the development of political structure that this law supports. In this paper, I examine how the Supreme Court Justices employ competing rhetorical strategies in the “analytically distinct” cases of redistricting and reapportionment law to address the issue of racial reconciliation.’
  • Jennifer Andrus (Carnegie Mellon Univ), From Event to Text: The Effects of Entextualization in/on the Excited Utterance Exception to Hearsay
    • Abstract: ‘In this paper, I argue that assumptions about language circulated in US evidence law minimize the rhetoricity of some utterance and the actual differences between texts and events (Scheppele). I analyze trial and appellate language in which the excited utterance exception to hearsay is used, to argue that such utterances are actually entextualized–made into a recognizable “excited utterance.” Further, such practices ultimately affect the agency of the speaker of the “excited utterance utterance.”’
• What Can We Learn from the California Gay Marriage Debates?
  • Abstract for This Program: ‘This panel is the result of a research collaboration that took place in spring 2009 that compares and contrasts the legal and political arguments that took place in California in 2007/2008 that produced contrary decisions about how to define “marriage.” Two goals motivate the proposal: 1) To improve our scholarly understanding of how “reasonableness” was performed differently in the technical and public settings of the California debate; 2) To consider what role argumentation critics might play as the national debate over gay marriage continues.’
  • Justin Killian (University of Minnesota, Twin Cities), Public Arguments Supporting Proposition 8
    • Abstract: ‘This presentation reviews the four major arguments in print and video made in favor of Prop 8: Marriage is correctly defined as between a man and a woman, the people should define rather than the courts, the California Supreme Court decision will lead to bad consequences, and gay couples are already protected by California’s Domestic Partnership Act.’
  • Emily Berg (University of Minnesota, Twin Cities), How to Secularize a Religious Argument: An Examination of Selected Amici Briefs Filed in In re Marriage Cases
    • Abstract: ‘Amici Curiae briefs are an underappreciated source for understanding legal argumentation. This presentation is based on a review of all 45 amici briefs filed for In re Marriage Cases and will focus in particular on how advocates attempted to “secularized” otherwise religious arguments opposed to gay marriage in order to be “reasonable” according to the norms and practices of constitutional argument.’
  • Jon Hoffman (University of Minnesota, Twin Cities), Public Arguments Opposing Proposition 8
    • Abstract: ‘This presentation reviews the major arguments opposing Prop 8: That Prop 8 is discriminatory, the Courts should decide civil rights rather than popular vote, the bad consequences predicted by proponents are not true, and marriage should be about love and commitment. Limitations of the arguments deployed by Prop 8 opponents are noted.’
  • Edward Schiappa (University of Minnesota, Twin Cities), Lost in Translation: Considering the Role of Argument Critics in the Gay Marriage Debate
  • Abstract: ‘This presentation notes the very different performances of “reasonableness” that took place in the technical sphere of constitutional argument and the public sphere of the Prop 8 debate leading up to the election. The role of argument critics as “translators” of the technical sphere is offered as an appropriate role for argument critics interested in civic engagement.’

If you know of other legal information programs at NCA 2009, please identify them in the comments.

Additional conference programs are searchable here. For more information, please see the conference Website.

Coulson, Legal Writing and Disciplinary Knowledge-Building: A Comparative Study

Douglas M. Coulson, Esq., Assistant Instructor at the University of Texas at Austin Department of Rhetoric & Writing has published Legal Writing and Disciplinary Knowledge-Building: A Comparative Study in 6 Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors (JALWD) 160 (2009). Here is a summary:

“In this article, I examine Susan Peck MacDonald’s recent study of
disciplinary knowledge-building in Professional Academic Writing in the Humanities and Social Sciences [(1995)] and apply the methods used in her study and other studies of professional writing in the disciplines to analyze a sample of law review and journal articles involving a discrete legal question that is currently emerging in the United States and internationally, specifically, how and when arbitration may be compelled in disputes involving nonsignatories to an arbitration agreement. The purpose of this study is to identify the knowledge-building activities of a discrete legal discourse community and to compare the knowledge-building activities of that community to the knowledge-building activities of professional writing in other disciplines in order to identify the position the law review and journal articles occupy on the disciplinary knowledge-building continuum. In my conclusion, I also offer reflections on the findings of the study and its implications for the application of interdisciplinary studies to legal writing.” (citations omitted)

Hawes et al. on a Computational Model of U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Timothy Hawes, Professor Jimmy Lin, and Professor Philip Resnik, all of the University of Maryland, have published Elements of a Computational Model for Multi-Party Discourse: The Turn-Taking Behavior of Supreme Court Justices, in Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 60, Issue 8 (August 2009), pages 1607-1615. Here is the abstract:

“This work explores computational models of multi-party discourse, using transcripts from U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments. The turn- taking behavior of participants is treated as a supervised sequence labeling problem and modeled using first- and second-order conditional random fields (CRFs). We specifically explore the hypothesis that discourse markers and personal references provide important features in such models. Results from a sequence prediction experiment demonstrate that incorporating these two types of features yields significant improvements in accuracy. Our experiments are couched in the broader context of developing tools to support legal scholarship, although we see other natural language processing applications as well.”