Rhetoric in Law and Politics

Jacob Gersen & Adrian Vermeule

  • Jacob Gersen

Course Requirements (1) Seminar participation will be a significant component of the final grade. (2) Students will also be required to write three response papers, between 1,000 and 2,500 words, on any of the readings. Papers should be submitted through Canvas by 5 pm two (2) days before the session in which those readings will be discussed, except that response papers on the first session may be submitted at any time. Papers need not conduct a close textual parsing of the readings; the idea is to address an important puzzle, problem or theme at issue in the readings, in order to generate class discussion.

10 Ridicule & Insults 10 Ridicule & Insults

10.1. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

10.2 Freud, Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious 10.2 Freud, Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious

Excerpt TBD

10.3. Jacobi and Sag, Taking Laughter Seriously at the Supreme Court, Vanderbilt Law Review

Jacobi and Sag, Taking Laughter Seriously at the Supreme Court, Vanderbilt Law Review
H2O

Rhetoric in Law and Politics

Jacob Gersen

This free and open casebook is Creative Commons licensed. Learn more

Table of contents

  1. 1

    Role and Rhetoric

  2. 2

    Ethos & Masks

  3. 3

    Norm and Exception

  4. 4

    Fig Leaves and (False?) Modesty

  5. 5

    Pretext

  6. 6

    Political Eulogies

  7. 7

    Legal Eulogies

  8. 8

    Avoidance

  9. 9

    Speech Acts

  10. 10

    Ridicule & Insults

    1. 10.1

      Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

    2. 10.2

      Freud, Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious

    3. 10.3

      Jacobi and Sag, Taking Laughter Seriously at the Supreme Court, Vanderbilt Law Review

  11. 11

    Rhetoric & Administration

◀ Previous Next ▶