Katyal, Sonia, “Semiotic Disobedience” . Washington University Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, 2006
Available at SSRN: Katyal, Sonia, “Semiotic Disobedience” . Washington University Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, 2006:
Nearly twenty years ago, a prominent media studies professor, John Fiske, coined the term “semiotic democracy” to describe a world where audiences freely and widely engage in the use of cultural symbols in response to the forces of media. Although Fiske originally referenced the audience’s power in viewing and interpreting television narratives, today, his vision of semiotic democracy has become perhaps the single most important ideal cited by scholars who imagine a utopian relationship between law, technology, and democratic culture. In this Article, I seek to introduce another framework to supplement Fiske’s important metaphor: the phenomenon of “semiotic disobedience.” Three contemporary cultural moments in the world – one corporate, one academic, and one artistic – call for a new understanding of the limitations and possibilities of semiotic democracy and underline the need for a supplementary framework.
As public spaces have become converted into vehicles for corporate advertising – ads painted onto sidewalks and into buildings, schools, and other public spaces – product placement has soared to new heights of power and subtlety. And throughout, the law has generously offered near-sovereign protection to such symbolism through the ever-expanding vehicle of intellectual property protection. Equations between real property and intellectual property are ubiquitous. Underlying these themes is a powerful linkage between intellectual and tangible property: as one expands, so does the other.
Yet at the same time, there is another facet that is often left out of the picture, involving the increasing response of artists who have chosen to expand their activities past the boundaries of cultural dissent and into the boundaries of asserted illegality. For every movement toward enclosure that the law facilitates, there is an opposite, underappreciated movement toward liberation from control – a moment where social activism exposes the need for alternative political economies of information. And yet the difference between these marketplaces of speech – one protected, one prohibited – both captures and transcends the foundational differences between democracy and disobedience itself.
Just as previous discussions of civil disobedience focused on the need to challenge existing laws by using certain types of public and private property for expressive freedoms, today’s generation seeks to alter existing intellectual property by interrupting, appropriating, and then replacing the passage of information from creator to consumer.
This Article suggests that the phenomenon of semiotic disobedience offers a radically different vantage point than Fiske’s original vision, one that underlines the importance of distributive justice in intellectual property. Thus, instead of interrogating the limits of First Amendment freedoms, as many scholars have already done, I argue that a study of semiotic disobedience reveals an even greater need to study both the core boundaries between types of properties – intellectual, real, personal – and how propertization offers a subsidy to particular types of expression over others.
SONIA KATYAL
Fordham University School of Law
140 West 62nd Street
New York , NY 10023
United States
212-636-7424 (Phone)
212-636-6899 (Fax)
First lady Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner will become Argentina’s first elected woman leader after universal women’s suffrage introduced in 1947. The country’s 27.1 million registered voters are obliged to vote, ensuring massive turnout, but the campaign was marred by widespread apathy which gave no sense that the first election of a female president was historic. Mrs Kirchner will be the most powerful woman in Latin America since Chile’s President Michelle Bachelet, the region’s only other female head of state, is at the helm of a much smaller economy.
Universal suffrage (also general suffrage or common suffrage) consists of the extension of the right to vote to all adults, without distinction as to race, sex, belief, intelligence, or economic or social status.
Universal suffrage by country/state in chronological order :
1755 – 1769 Corsica First self-governing nation to give suffrage to women (if unmarried or widowed). Annexed by France in 1769. 1776 – 1807 New Jersey, USA First state to include both women and blacks. There was a property requirement; but its enforcement was and is disputed. New Jersey was independent until 1789. 1792 Principality of Liège Universal suffrage (all inhabitants over 18, without distinction) in the state of Liège to elect all the members of the National Convention. 1864 Greece The first European state to institute direct, secret, universal male suffrage. 1869 Wyoming, USA The first U.S. territory to allow women to run for the legislature. Upon the state’s admission into the Union in 1890, Wyoming was the first U.S. state to grant women the voting franchise. Other Western states also had universal suffrage before 1920. 1879 – 1887 Franceville First self-governing nation after New Jersey to practice universal suffrage without distinction of sex or race; however, only whites could hold office. After 1887 it was jointly ruled by France and Britain and is now part of Vanuatu. 1886 – 1899 Tavolara During its republican period 1886-1899, this small island country near Sardinia practiced universal suffrage. Later it became a part of Italy. 1893 New Zealand With the inclusion of women becomes the first major nation to grant universal suffrage; however, women were not eligible to stand for parliament until 1919. 1894 South Australia Women’s suffrage, but not universal. First state to also allow women as candidates for parliament. Other Australian states followed 1899-1908. Aborigines of Australia were allowed to vote, but this right was taken away at the time of Federation in 1901 and they were not allowed to vote in South Australia again until 1963. 1901 Australia Women’s suffrage, but not universal; the first federal election in Australia. In 1902 restrictions were imposed on Chinese, Indians, Polynesians (except Māori) and Indigenous Australians amongst others and some of these persisted until 1965. 1906 Grand Duchy of Finland As an autonomous Grand Duchy. including women, first nation to also allow women as candidates. This was the first time when women were actually elected (19 of 200 MPs). Finland became independent with same the Universal Suffrage in 1917. 1913 Norway Including women, first independent nation to also allow women as candidates. 1915 Denmark First voting rights to anyone came in 1849, and the rules was changed a number of times. But it was not until the change of the constitution in 1915 that all men and women had influence on all chambers. 1918 Canada Last province to enact women’s suffrage was Quebec in 1940; status Indians gained the right to vote in 1960. 1918 Estonia 1918 United Kingdom Women over 30 had been given the vote in 1918 with some property restrictions and in 1928 universal suffrage for all. 1918 Soviet Union With the 1918 Soviet Constitution, although direct voting and the lifting of some political restrictions not until the 1936 Soviet Constitution. 1918 Austria After the Central Powers’ defeat in World War I. 1918 Czechoslovakia After the Central Powers’ defeat in World War I 1918 Germany After the Central Powers’ defeat in World War I. Revoked during 1935-1945 by the Nuremberg Laws. The restrictions applied also to the territories occupied by the Nazis during World War II 1918 Hungary After the Central Powers’ defeat in World War I 1919 Democratic Republic of Armenia became part of the Soviet Union in 1920 1919 Azerbaijan Democratic Republic became part of the Soviet Union in 1920 1919 Democratic Republic of Georgia became part of the Soviet Union in 1921 1919 Poland
1919 Luxembourg 1919 The Netherlands universal male suffrage in 1917 1920 United States After the Civil War, Male Blacks and other minorities were guaranteed suffrage in the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, de jure. However, it was not enforced in the South, and some parts of the North, until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 1921 Sweden universal male suffrage 1909, female suffrage 1921 1922 Lithuania 1922 Republic of Ireland As the Irish Free State in 1922, law adopted from British law having been part of the United Kingdom. Law subsequently carried over during changes in constitutional status in 1937 and 1949. 1923 Romania 1931 Sri Lanka (as Ceylon) Indian Tamils disenfranchised 1949 1931 Spain Male suffrage over 23. In 1933: Universal (for both Male and Female) suffrage. Revoked during Franco era, 1939-1975 1932 Brazil Replaced the previous system of male suffrage, from 1891, which excluded homeless, women, priests, the military and illiterates. 1933 Turkey 1935 Burma Last free elections held in 1990. [4] 1944 France Universal male suffrage used in 1792, for the National Convention, enacted in 1793 and 1848, but restricted with length of residence in 1851; reintroduced in 1852. 1945 Italy Universal male suffrage 1912 for people 30 or older, 1918 for people 21 or older 1945 Japan Universal male suffrage 1926 1947 Republic of China (now on Taiwan) Universal suffrage under the Constitution of the Republic of China 1948 United Nations Provision of “universal and equal suffrage” in Universal Declaration of Human Rights [Article 21(3)] 1948 Israel Universal suffrage since independence. 1948 South Korea
1948 Belgium
1950 India As part of Constitution of India. 1951 Argentina Universal male suffrage granted in 1912; universal women’s suffrage introduced in 1947. 1952 Greece Universal male suffrage 1864; women permitted to vote in local elections 1930. 1955 Malaysia The victory of Union Party convinces the British to grant Malaysia’s Independence in 1957. 1956 Colombia 1963 Iran Reforms under Shah’s “White Revolution” 1964 Afghanistan Constitution transformed Afghanistan into a modern democracy. [5] 1965 Australia A murky constitutional history regarding the voting rights of Aboriginals of Australia was clarified and ratified at the federal government level and in subsequent state governments in the following years – see Human rights in Australia for more. 1971 Switzerland Introduction of women’s suffrage at the federal level; for cantonal elections this was not completed until 1990. 1976 Portugal 1979 European Community (now European Union) 1984 Liechtenstein 1990 Samoa 1994 South Africa White women’s suffrage in 1930. 2002 Bahrain Universal male suffrage in 1973, although parliament was suspended and dissolved in 1975 for approximately 30 years.
2003 Oman 2005 Kuwait Universal adult male suffrage since 1962, for citizens who are 21 or older, with the exception of those who, at the time of elections, serve in the armed forces and, citizens who have been naturalized for fewer than 30 years. Note: As of 2005, women who satisfy the age and citizenship requirements are allowed to vote provided both men and women vote in separate polling locations. 2006 – 2010 U.A.E. Limited, will be fully expanded by 2010.[6]
María Eva Duarte de Perón (May 7, 1919 – July 26, 1952) was the second wife of Argentine President Juan Domingo Perón (1895–1974) and the First Lady of Argentina from 1946 until her death in 1952. She is often referred to as simply Eva Perón, or by the affectionate Spanish language diminutive Evita, which literally translates into English as “Little Eva”.
Eva Perón also created the Female Peronist Party, which was the first large female political party in the nation. Navarro and Fraser write that by 1952, the party had 500,000 members and 3,600 headquarters across the country. In the election of 1952, this base of support won Perón the election by sixty-three percent.
Kurdistan, the homeland to more than 20 million Kurds, is a nation that exists only in the dreams of the Kurds, and in the long forgotten Treaty of Sevres, which divided up the Ottoman Empire, following World War I. The Kurds, inhabiting parts of Turkey, Iraq and Iran are the largest national group without a country.
During the 1991 Gulf War, Turkey reluctantly supported the anti-Iraq coalition, including Operation Provide Comfort, to shield Iraqi Kurds from Saddam Hussein’s revenge, while the PKK intensified its guerrilla war, operating from bases in Iraq and Syria.
In 1993, with the Gulf War over, Turkey sent 50,000 troops into Iraq, in a massive assault against Kurdish rebels, no longer protected.
In 1994, dissenting political parties were banned, elected Kurdish representatives were accused of treason and imprisoned, while others fled into exile. Turkish forces have launched air and ground attacks, ravaging as many as 3000 Kurdish villages, forcibly relocating over 3 million villagers and defoliating forests in its scorched earth campaigns to destroy the PKK. The death toll is approaching 40,000.
Turkey has moved again more troops to the mountainous Iraqi border, to monitor on an estimated 3,000 rebels of Turkey’s outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) who use northern Iraq as a base.
Yesterday Turkey sent warplanes to bomb Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) targets along the Iraqi border in southeast Turkey, the country’s semi-official Anatolia news agency has said.
Press Statement
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
July 26, 2007
The United States congratulates the Prime Ministers of Turkey, Greece, and Italy on their signing of the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Turkey-Greece-Italy Pipeline (TGI) today in Rome. This Agreement defines the commercial and legal framework for the transit of Caspian gas into the Pipeline, clearing the way for accelerated construction. This Agreement is a cornerstone of joint efforts by all three countries, with strong U.S. and EU support, to help Europe diversify its sources of natural gas supplies from the Caspian Sea, and to promote economic development in the Caspian region. These efforts build on strong cooperation over the past decade among the United States, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey to develop the South Caucasus gas pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, and expand our collaboration to include key EU partners.
2007/639 – Released on July 26, 2007
“Karmacoma” is the promotional video made for the single of the same name by British trip-hop collective Massive Attack. The experimental musician Tricky collaborated and sang on the track. It premiered in May 1995 and was directed by Jonathan Glazer. The bass line sample featured is the same bass line used by Serge Gainsbourg in the song Melody from his 1971 album Historie de Melody Nelson. During the first Gulf War, several British media channels became anxious to avoid using words suggestive of war and violence, and Massive Attack (then struggling to become established) were forced to temporarily change their name to Massive.
From October 26 to October 28, the “Oil of the 21st Century” conference will take place in Berlin.
“Intellectual Property is the oil of the 21st century” – this quote by Mark Getty, chairman of Getty Images, one of the world’s largest Intellectual Proprietors, offers a unique perspective on the current conflicts around copyrights, patents and trademarks. Not only does it open up the complete panorama of conceptual confusion that surrounds this relatively new and rather hallucinatory form of property – it must also be understood as a direct declaration of war.
The “War Against Piracy” – a preventive, permanent and increasingly panic-driven battle that defies the traditional logic of warfare – is only one of the many strange and contradictory crusades that currently take place at the new frontier of Intellectual Property. Under the banner of the “Information Society”, a cartel of corporate knowledge distributors struggle to maintain their exclusive right to the exploitation and commodification of the informational resources of the world. With their campaign for “Digital Rights Management”, the copyright industries attempt to simultaneously outlaw the Universal Computer, revoke the Internet and suspend the fundamental laws of information. Under the pretext of the “Creative Commons”, an emerging middle class of Intellectual Proprietors fights an uphill battle against the new and increasingly popular forms of networked production that threaten the regimes of individual authorship and legal control. And as it envisions itself drilling for “the oil of the 21st century”, the venture capital that fuels the quest for properties yet undiscovered has no choice but to extend the battlefield even further, far beyond the realm of the immaterial, deep into the world of machines, the human body, and the biosphere.
But while Intellectual Property struggles to conquer our hearts and minds, ideas still improve, and technology participates in the improvement. On all fronts, the enormous effort towards expropriation and privatization of public property is met with a strange kind of almost automatic resistance. If piracy – the spontaneously organized, massively distributed and not necessarily noble reappropriation and redistribution of the Commons – seems necessary today, then because technological progress implies it.
Technological progress – from the Printing Press to the BitTorrent protocol – is what essentially drives cultural development and social change, what makes it possible to share ideas, embrace expressions, improve inventions and correct the works of the past. Human history is the history of copying, and the entirely defensive and desperate attempt to stall its advancement by the means of Intellectual Property – the proposition to ressurect the dead as rights holders and turn the living into their licensees – only indicates how profoundly recent advancements in copying technology, the adaptability and scalability they have attained, the ideas and habits they are creating, are about to change the order of things. What lies at the core of the conflict is the emergence of new modes of subjectivation that escape the globally dominant mode of production. The spectre that is haunting Intellectual Proprietors world-wide is no longer just the much-lamented “death of the author”, but the becoming-producer and becoming-distributor of the capitalist consumer.
The world has irrevocably entered the age of digital reproduction, and it is time to revisit the questions that Walter Benjamin raised in the light of photography and film: how to reaffirm the positive potential and promise that lies in today’s means of reproduction, how to refuse the artificial scarcity that is being created as an attempt to contain the uncontrolled circulation of cultural commodities, how to resist the rhetoric of warfare that only articulates the discrepancy between the wealth of technical possibilites and the poverty of their use, and how to renew the people’s legitimate claim to copy, to be copied, and to change property relations.
In order to deconstruct – and to develop radically different perspectives on – the “oil of the 21st century”, there is an urgent need for approaches that provide fewer answers and more questions, produce less opinion and more curiosity. The coils of the serpent are even more complex than the burrows of the molehill, and the task is to trace, with the same bewilderement that befell Franz Kafka at the advent of the modern juridical bureaucracies, the monstruous, absurd and often outright hilarious legal procedures and protocols of the Intellectual Property Era.
More than 150 countries around the world will observe World Food Day this year, organizing special events, conferences, contests, sports activities and a global candlelight vigil on “The Right to Food”.
FAO celebrates World Food Day each year on 16 October, the day the Organization was founded in 1945 in Quebec City, Canada. This year’s World Food Day theme is “The Right to Food.”
This year’s World Food Day theme, “The Right to Food,” highlights a basic human right that is often ignored as severe food insecurity continues to afflict more than 850 million people.
The right to food, according to international law, is the right of every person to have regular access to sufficient, nutritionally adequate and culturally acceptable food for an active, healthy life. It is the right to feed oneself in dignity, rather than the right to be fed.
Since the 1996 World Food Summit, FAO has worked with governments and communities worldwide to gain recognition for this basic human right.
Culture Machine is an international open-access journal of culture and theory, founded in 1999. Its aim is to be to cultural studies and cultural theory what 'fundamental research' is to the natural sciences: open-ended, non-goal orientated, exploratory and experimental. All contributions to the journal are peer-reviewed. […]
This provocative and insightful film is the first in a series of documentaries that will reveal the secret knowledge embedded in the work of the greatest filmmaker of all time: Stanley Kubrick. […]
Questo URL del feed non è più valido. Visita questa pagina per trovare il nuovo URL, se puoi accedervi: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/?sk=app_2309869772">http://www.facebook.com/?sk=app_2309869772</a> […]
