In this episode, Steph Tai, Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin Law School, discusses their article "Legalizing the Meaning of Meat," which is published in the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. Tai begins by explaining the historical development of the meaning of meat, and different kinds of foods that have been considered meat in different places at different times. They continue by describing the current state of meat alternative foods, including plant-based, insect-based, and cultured foods. They outline current efforts to define the meaning of meat legislatively and why those efforts have largely failed. And they reflect on broader philosophical questions on how and why the meaning of the term "meat" matters. Tai is on Twitter at @YoStephTai.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Giorgio Angelini and Arthur Jones, the filmmakers of the documentary "Feels Good Man," which won the Sundance 2020 Special Jury Prize, and Louis Tompros of WilmerHale, discuss artist Matt Furie, his character Pepe the Frog, Pepe's memeification and appropriation by the alt-right, and Furie's legal battle to save Pepe. They describe Furie's creation of the Pepe character, how Pepe became an internet meme, and why Pepe became a symbol of hate speech. They describe how Furie used copyright law to prevent the commercialization of Pepe by alt-right pundits, focusing on the legal strategy and how they explained their theory of the case to the court. Angelini is on Twitter at @giorgieangelini and Tompros is on Twitter at @LouisTompros.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Bashar Malkawi, Global Professor of Practice in Law at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, discusses his work on national security and international trade. He begins by explaining why national security exception to international trade agreements can be a problem, especially national boycotts. He claims that the arguments in favor of broad boycotts are unconvincing and that they should be avoided. And he reflects on how international organizations can discourage boycotts and other trade restrictions. Malkawi's article "Economic Boycotts: The Interaction of National Security and International Economic Law" is forthcoming in the Academy of Legal Studies in Business National Proceedings (2021).

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Joseph S. Diedrich, an Associate at Husch Blackwell LLP, discusses his article "Separation, Supremacy, and the Unconstitutional Rational Basis Test," which will be published in the Villanova Law Review. Diedrich begins by explaining what the rational basis test is and where it came from. He argues that it violates the separation of powers, by absolving courts of the obligation to judge in certain cases. And he analogizes to the Chevron Doctrine to explain why that is a problem. Diedrich is on Twitter at @JSDiedrich.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Mary T. Hannon, a law student at DePaul University College of Law and patent agent at Marshall, Gerstein & Boren LLP, discusses her article "The Patent Bar Gender Gap: Expanding the Eligibility Requirements to Foster Inclusion and Innovation in the U.S. Patent System," which is published in IP Theory. Hannon begins by explaining what the Patent Bar is, why it matters, and how one becomes a member. She observes that the qualifications for becoming a member of the Patent Bar are antiquated and arbitrary, and effectively exclude many women, for no good reason. She argues that reforming those requirements would increase the diversity of the patent bar and reflect the realities of innovation in the modern era. Hannon is on Twiter at @marythannon.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Stephen M. Griffin, W.R. Irby Chair and Rutledge C. Clement Jr. Professor in Constitutional Law at Tulane University Law School, discusses his article "Optimistic Originalism and the Reconstruction Amendments," which will be published in the Tulane Law Review. Griffin begins by describing what he calls "optimistic originalism," or originalism that argues the "rights revolution" of the 20th century is consistent with the original meaning of the Reconstruction Amendments. Griffin explains the argument presented by optimistic originalists, why it is historically unconvincing, and how we should think about constitutional change.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In a special partnership with The University of Chicago Law Review Online and the Academy for Justice, Ipse Dixit brings you a three part series on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice. This symposium of essays, hosted by The University of Chicago Law Review Online, was organized by the Academy for Justice. The contributors include leaders of criminal justice and health law centers, and scholars of criminal legal systems, whose works discuss the intersection of Criminal Justice and the COVID-19 pandemic. Contributors include Valena E. Beety (ASU), Brandon L. Garrett with Deniz Ariturk and William E. Crozier (Duke), Sharon Dolovich (UCLA), Maybell Romero (Northern Illinois), Pamela R. Metzger with Gregory J. Guggenmos (SMU Deason Center), Barry Friedman (NYU) with Robin Tholin, and Jennifer Oliva (Seton Hall).

In November, the participants joined each other online to discuss their pieces with Ipse Dixit host Maybell Romero, associate professor at Northern Illinois University College of Law. In this Episode 3 of the resulting three part series, Romero speaks with Deniz Ariturk and William Crozier about their piece coauthored with Brandon Garrett, Virtual Criminal Courts, and Pam Metzger and Greg Guggenmos about their piece, COVID-19 and the Ruralization of U.S. Criminal Court Systems. Ariturk is a researcher at the Duke Law Center for Science and Justice and the Duke Moral Attitudes and Decision Making Lab, and Crozier the Research Director at Duke’s Center for Science and Justice. Metzger is the inaugural Director of the Deason Criminal Justice Reform Center at SMU Dedman School of Law, and Guggenmos is as consulting statistician at Deason.

Crozier is on Twitter at @WilliamCrozierIV, Metzger at Friedman at @ProfPamMetzger, and Romero at @MaybellRomero.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Anat Alon-Beck, Assistant Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, discusses her article "Alternative Venture Capital: The New Unicorn Investors," which will be published in the Tennessee Law Review. Alon-Beck begins by explaining how she became interested in unicorn firms and their financing. She describes the rise of unicorn firms and how they have affected the investment landscape. She reflects on recent efforts to make it easier for retail investors to invest in private offerings. And she argues that regulators should be careful about how they proceed. Alon-Beck is on Twitter at @anatalonbeck.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In a special partnership with The University of Chicago Law Review Online and the Academy for Justice, Ipse Dixit brings you a three part series on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice. This symposium of essays, hosted by The University of Chicago Law Review Online, was organized by the Academy for Justice. The contributors include leaders of criminal justice and health law centers, and scholars of criminal legal systems, whose works discuss the intersection of Criminal Justice and the COVID-19 pandemic. Contributors include Valena E. Beety (ASU), Brandon L. Garrett with Deniz Ariturk and William E. Crozier (Duke), Sharon Dolovich (UCLA), Maybell Romero (Northern Illinois), Pamela R. Metzger with Gregory J. Guggenmos (SMU Deason Center), Barry Friedman (NYU) with Robin Tholin, and Jennifer Oliva (Seton Hall).

In November, the participants joined each other online to discuss their pieces with Ipse Dixit host Maybell Romero, associate professor at Northern Illinois University College of Law. In this Episode 2 of the resulting three part series, Romero speaks with Jennifer Oliva about her piece, Policing Opioid Use Disorder in a Pandemic, and Barry Friedman about his piece, Policing the Pandemic. Oliva is an Associate Professor at Seton Hall Law where she specializes in health law and policy, FDA law, drug policy, evidence, and complex litigation. Friedman is a Professor of Law at NYU, and is the founding director of NYU’s The Policing Project, which works with all stakeholders to ensure that policing is transparent, equitable, and democratically accountable.

Oliva is on Twitter at @jenndoliva, Friedman at @barryfriedman1, and Romero at @MaybellRomero.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Remco Heesen, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Western Australia School of Humanities, and Liam Kofi Bright, Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy, Logic, and Scientific Method at the London School of Economics, discuss their article "Is Peer Review a Good Idea?," which is published in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. They begin by explaining what peer review is, how it came to be, and what it is supposed to accomplish. They observe that peer review doesn't appear to actually deliver any of its purported benefits, and comes with many costs. They argue that we should eliminate pre-publication peer review, and use other methods of evaluating the quality of scholarship. For more information, see their subsequent article "Jury Theorems for Peer Review," which they co-authored with Marcus Arvan. Bright is on Twitter at @lastpositivist, Heesen is at @RemcoHeesen, and Arvan is at @MarcusArvan.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.