Judicial Rhetoric and Ulysses in Government Hands

The famous decision by District Judge John Woolsey lifting the ban on the publication of James Joyce's novel Ulysses in the United States changes the nature of obscenity law when it appears in 1933, but the opinion itself is defective in ways that lead toward an unworkable legal standard in fut...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Rhetoric & public affairs 2012-10, Vol.15 (3), p.435-466
Main Author: Ferguson, Robert A
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Audiences
Districts
Judges
Law
Obscenity
Rhetoric
United States of America
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The famous decision by District Judge John Woolsey lifting the ban on the publication of James Joyce's novel Ulysses in the United States changes the nature of obscenity law when it appears in 1933, but the opinion itself is defective in ways that lead toward an unworkable legal standard in future cases. When a decision is accepted, but the logic for reaching it is faulty, the law suffers in a particular way, and this kind of discrepancy between means and ends is often found in the decisions of high-profile cases. Judge Woolsey's use of standard rhetorical devices to hold his several audiences in place is, therefore, worth examining beyond itself. United States v. One Book Called "Ulysses" provides a classic example of how judicial rhetoric persuades the auditors ultimately responsible for a rule of law. Properly understood, the opinion can help an engaged citizenry to recognize and evaluate the methods that control understanding in a controversial opinion. Adapted from the source document.
ISSN:1094-8392
DOI:10.1353/rap.2012.0027