Search results

Purpose: This chapter examines how two basic rights, freedom of expression, and the right to equality based on one’s dignity, reputation, and honor, were balanced in a case involving a stand-up comedian and an adolescent suffering from Treacher Collins syndrome. Methodology/Approach: The case is contrasted with Jürgen Habermas’ concept of the public sphere and with the intrinsic and utilitarian values that Canadian courts have attributed to free speech. Findings: Because the case was dealt with first in a human rights tribunal and then by a court of appeal, a number of considerations were overlooked in court proceedings: how laughter occurs; the broadening of Ward’s audience and its consequences; and Ward’s publicity strategy. These aspects are explored here to give a more complete picture of the case beyond the court decisions. Originality/Value: In Canada, freedom of expression is usually dealt with ordinary courts. A whole new avenue for dealing with this right is human rights bodies and tribunals. Contesting free speech in the name of defamation is being replaced by rights entrenched in human rights charters, such as the right to equality based on the preservation of one’s dignity, reputation, and honor.

Approach – A handful of studies in ethnomethodology have targeted the conflicts of young members of society (Butler, 2008; Church, 2009; Danby & Baker, 1998a; Maynard, 1985a; Theobald & Danby, 2012, in press). Two occasionally overlapping strands of inquiry may be identified in this research: studies with an interest in charting the local organization of dispute exchanges and those seeking to highlight the socializing aspects of dispute procedures.

Purpose – This chapter examines a single feature of everyday exchanges taking place in a correctional facility for male youth. It investigates the ways through which certain membership category collections (such as ‘gender’ or ‘stage-of-life’) are drawn upon to instigate (Goodwin, M. H. (1982). ‘Instigating’: Storytelling as a social process. American Ethnologist, 9, 799–819.) adversarial exchanges.

Methodology – In so doing, this chapter draws on the two chief strands of ethnomethodological inquiry: sequential analysis of talk as well as membership categorization analysis.

Research implications – The analysis not only allows for a deeper understanding of commonplace discourse practices in a confined correctional facility for young people, but more importantly, of the methods through which inmates draw on local, situational as well as commonsense resources to proverbially ‘rock the boat’, that is, to change the order of ongoing events.

Social implications – In this way, this chapter offers insight into the mundane life of a group of young people in forced care.

This chapter draws on 17 months of ethnographic observations in the Parade department at an American theme park that I call Wonderland. The Parade department is a homonormative workplace, numerically and culturally dominated by gay men. I examine how this work culture challenges the dominance of heteronormative masculinity often embedded at work through an exploration of backstage interactions among performers. I also explore the gendered and racialized meanings of the camp aesthetic that performers embody. I argue that while Parade culture undermines workplace heteronormative masculinity, it also reproduces the epistemology of the closet through its reliance on the gay/straight binary.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.