Columbia University Libraries Journals
Not a member yet
6467 research outputs found
Sort by
Producing the Meaning of An Asianist Revolution: Images of Revolutionaries in the 1899 Sino-Japanese Joint Aid to the Philippine Revolution
Get PDFAsianism had been a multi-faceted set of ideas, emotions, and actions hinged upon the constantly appropriated category “Asia” in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. While many scholars have analyzed different threads of Asianist movements, they have not given enough attention to the way self-proclaimed Asianists fashioned themselves through print media. How did Asianists confer meaning to their political activities and shape their audiences’ perceptions of Asianism? In this paper, I argue that through East Asia’s burgeoning print media, three Asianist activists—Sun Yat-sen of China, Miyazaki Tōten of Japan, and Mariano Ponce of the Philippines—produced and propagated meanings of Asianism in a Sino-Japanese joint aid to the Philippine Revolution in 1899. I demonstrate how images of these activists were coded and weaved into an Asianist “web of meaning” by themselves and their followers. Although the aid to the Philippines ended in a fiasco, these Asianists transformed their failure, in different ways, into a glorious image of Asian solidarity through writing autobiographies and propaganda material. By emphasizing the print media, I aim to deepen historians’ understanding of the relationship between the production the history of Asianism and pan-Asianist revolutionary networks in the early twentieth century
Drudgery, Not Slavery: How and Why John Locke Stays True to Exodus 21 in “Of Slavery”
Get PDFJohn Locke’s philosophy of slavery has been oft-disputed; despite arguing against the persistence of slavery as an institution in his political philosophy, Locke was involved in colonial projects that legalized slavery. While many scholars have attempted to analyze this contradiction, relatively few have examined Locke’s use of biblical allusion in his seminal work on slavery, the aptly named “Of Slavery.” Though Locke’s mention of “slavery among the Jews” in this essay seems at first to be haphazard, by analyzing Locke’s textual fidelity and potential personal motivations for it one can see the lasting rhetorical and social impact of the story of Exodus on later religious groups and their own philosophical understandings of slavery. Overall, we see that despite the obvious differences in context between ancient Egypt and Locke’s seventeenth century England, Locke’s personal identification with the story of the Hebrews moved his arguments on slavery towards a more biblical understanding. 
A Scoping Review on Energy Drink Consumption Among Adolescents and Young Adults
Get PDFThis scoping review aimed to identify empirical studies that have explored the use of energy drink consumption among adolescents and young adults. Method: A scoping review search was conducted in the following five databases: PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, Scopus, and Psycnet. Some inclusion criteria, such as being published in the last 10 years, and exclusion criteria, such as article type, animal-model usage, and age, were used to select the studies, and 11 were analyzed independently. Results: The results showed that adolescents use energy drinks for many factors, such as connection with peers and family, propaganda, and taste. Some studies have been developed in Australia and the United States of America, and some have explored other variables associated with energy drinks and alcohol use. Conclusion: It is essential to understand how energy drink consumption and behaviors are related to health or risky behavior and its associations with other drugs. More research is needed to explore the long-term health impacts of energy drink consumption during the critical developmental periods of childhood and adolescence, as well as its association with alcohol and other substances. The findings underline the importance of stringent regulations, public health policies, and educational initiatives to mitigate the risks associated with energy drink consumption among adolescents. Future research is essential to understand the long-term implications and develop effective preventive strategies to safeguard adolescent health and well-being
Contexts of Co-Constructed Discourse: Interaction, Pragmatics, and Second Language Applications
Get PDFThe edited volume, Contexts of Co-constructed Discourse: Interaction Pragmatics, and Second Language Applications, edited by Czerwionka, Showstack, and Liskin (2022), is presented as a tribute to Dr. Dale April Koike and her contributions to applied linguistics, co-constructed discourse, pragmatics, and language pedagogy. Building upon that body of work, this collection showcases new developments in co-construction in discourse research. Each contributing author endeavors to add a more nuanced understanding of emergent context in interactions through chapters that explore some of the dynamics between action and language in interaction and delve into identities, social roles and actions, pragmatic meaning-making, frames, and context. The collection both offers thanks to Dr. Koike for her contributions to these areas of study and adds to the existing body of research on how speakers jointly negotiate meanings, contexts, identities, and social positions in interaction
Justice For Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence Conference Report
Get PDFDomestic violence survivors seeking justice and safety in New York State’s family and supreme courts often encounter a deeply flawed, poorly functioning system that exposes them and their children to further harm. On October 13 and 14, 2022, a coalition of leading nonprofit agencies that serve and advocate for survivors convened a conference in New York City to address these systemic inequities and identify meaningful solutions. During the conference, Justice for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence: Transforming an Inequitable Family Law System, attorneys, scholars, survivor leaders, members of the judiciary, social service professionals, psychologists and advocates identified key obstacles facing survivors and recommended needed reforms to New York State’s family law system.
Specifically, the conference focused on widespread inequities in custody, visitation, and family offense cases, which proceed in both the family and supreme courts, and the devastating impact they have on survivors. Throughout the two days, panelists confronted the ways in which these courts fail to provide an effective and equitable system for domestic violence survivors seeking safety and protection for themselves and their families, and identified the most significant challenges they face. In family law proceedings, the stakes could not be higher for survivors and their children, as this inadequate and inequitable system of justice has led to tragic consequences, including death or injury at the hands of abusers, loss of child custody and/or visitation rights, and further trauma inflicted by the litigation itself. Panelists also addressed the egregious under-funding and poor functioning of the Family Courts and the endemic bias woven into these institutions.
The Conference included ten keynote and panel presentations addressing significant systemic challenges and potential solutions for survivors of intimate partner violence in the family law system. The Conference featured first-hand accounts by survivors and practitioners, original research presented by renowned experts, and insights provided by prominent sitting and retired judges. Conference panelists drew from materials regarding the intersection of racism, misogyny, and other forms of oppression and its impact on systems, including groundbreaking reports on gender and racial bias in the court system. In addition, each panel provided relevant materials, including scholarly research, reports, studies, articles, statutes and proposed legislation, all of which remain available on the Conference website at https://www.familylaw2022.com/
Day 2 Panel 3: Self-Care as Self-Preservation: Understanding Vicarious Trauma & Enhancing Support for Providers
No full textDay 2 – October 14, 2022 Panel 3: Self-Care as Self-Preservation: Understanding Vicarious Trauma & Enhancing Support for Provider
The Past and Present of Press Publishers’ Rights in the EU
Get PDFIn the EU, the policy choice was to create a new ancillary right in favor of press publishers, meaning newspapers published in print or online. It was one of the achievements made by the controversial DSM Directive. Two articles were highly disputed: Articles 15 and 17. Both share the same goal: obtaining a better share of the value created on the internet for the authors. Article 17 offers authors strong negotiation leverage by considering that online content sharing service providers communicate content uploaded by users to the public. Article 15 creates an ancillary right in favor of press publishers to facilitate negotiation against internet platforms.
Recital 54 clearly explains the motivation of the EU legislator. First, there is a strong need for “a free and pluralist press,” which “provides a fundamental contribution to . . . the proper functioning of a democratic society.” Second, the “availability of reliable information” is related to the ability of press publishers to recoup their investments (Recital 55). Third, “publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications to the providers of those kinds of services, making it more difficult for them to recoup their investments.” The equation thus described seems rather simple. If press publishers are not able to license, they won’t be able to recoup their investments, and the public availability of reliable information will be in danger. Having said that, the goal for the EU legislator “is to strengthen [press publishers’] bargaining position[s] by securing their legal certainty,” which implies that the legislation wants to ensure press publishers’ ability to license. Providing an ancillary right is clearly seen by the EU legislator as a tool in favor of the protection of investment. That was already the case with the sui generis right given to the maker of a database in order to ascertain its investment in the creation of the database. Interestingly, these two ancillary rights are pure EU creation without any international background. Both are created at an EU level in order to secure investment and to facilitate licensing. The additional element for the justification of the press publishers’ right depends on a close link with democracy.
While it is easy to feel apprehensive about the complexities of such a licensing scheme, the solutions the scheme could bring are even more complex to determine. What is not clear at first is why copyright protection is not be sufficient to solve the problem of licensing. At least in France, press editors are vested with moral and economic rights regarding publication. Moreover, the existence of a contract between the journalist and the press publisher leads to a presumption of assignment of the journalist's rights to the publisher, contrary to the traditional solutions of French law. Furthermore, the Belgian case of Copipresse showed that copyright is not an inefficient means of licensing press publishers’ content. In that case, Press publishers won against Google because titles and first lines of articles reproduced by Google are protected by copyright law. Nevertheless, Google decided to stop aggregating these press publications in Belgium right after that decision. If this outcome was more a draw than a victory for press publishers, the failure does not come from copyright law. It remains that the Achilles heel of news articles’ copyright protection is the originality requirement and the need to prove that the reproduced extracts or titles are original and protected. The strength of the press publishers’ right is that the protection is not related to any legal requirement such as originality or investment. Protection is only tied to the legal notion of press publication. The apparent automatic nature of the right makes it easier to prohibit unlicensed online use of press publishers’ articles and gives them a strong negotiating leverage. The last question concerns the efficiency of a press publishers’ right. Before the creation of an EU ancillary right, European national experiences show that providing press publishers’ ancillary rights in addition to copyright protection is not always efficient. German copyright law was amended in 2013 in order to create a new ancillary right in favor of Press Publishers. Nevertheless, it was a failure since Google refused to negotiate with press publishers. Spain has passed a somewhat similar law. The law went into effect in Spain in January 2015, but Google News Spain was shut down on December 2014.
What is unclear is how a failure at a national level could become a success at an EU Level. Is it enough to grant a new right to press publishers to strengthen their bargaining position? In order to answer that question, the first part of the article will be devoted to the European law of press publishers. The second part will discuss the French experience which shows that the ancillary right is not an effective solution as such
Legislative Options for Supporting Local News: Alternatives to Copyright Reform
No full textLightly edited transcript of panel comments at the 2022 Symposium
Regulating Algorithmic Disinformation
No full textDisinformation is endemic in the digital age, seriously harming the public interest in democracy, health care, and national security. Increasingly, disinformation is created and disseminated by social media algorithms. Algorithmic disinformation, a new phenomenon, thus looms large in contemporary society. Recommendation algorithms are driving the spread of disinformation on social media networks, and generative algorithms are creating deepfakes, both at unprecedented levels. The regulation of algorithmic disinformation is therefore one of today’s thorniest legal problems.
Against this backdrop, this Article proposes a novel approach to regulating algorithmic disinformation effectively. It first explores why transparency, intelligibility, and accountability should be adopted as the three major principles of the legal regulation of algorithmic disinformation. Because of its market-based technology development and regulation policy, the United States has yet to adopt any laws regulating algorithmic disinformation, let alone these three principles. The Article then examines legislative reforms in France and China, where the three principles have been translated into legal rules requiring social media companies to disclose their disinformation-related algorithms, render them intelligible to users, and assume legal responsibility for curbing the spread of disinformation on their platforms.
Based on a critical discussion of the major problems with these legal rules, the Article puts forward a multi-stakeholder approach to better implement the three principles. It argues that the United States should take the lead in creating and piloting an algorithmic disinformation review system. This new system would empower the administrative oversight of algorithmic disinformation and promote the dynamic engagement of social media users and experts in policing algorithms that generate and disseminate disinformation. The ADRS would thus promote the transparency and intelligibility of algorithms and hold social media platforms accountable for curbing disinformation