{"title":"伤害的重构:2005年以来Labaye检验的新应用","authors":"Richard Jochelson, J. Gacek","doi":"10.29173/ALR2543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In R. v. Labaye, the Supreme Court revised the test for Criminal Code offences involving indecency and obscenity, replacing the previous community standards of tolerance test. Despite the Supreme Court’s demand for positive knowledge of (risk of) harm, the Labaye test still largely protects a normative vision of society rather than promoting human sexuality and freedom of expression. The judiciary post-Labaye continue to fill evidentiary vacuums with circumstantial evidence and intangible harms, informed by judicial tastes rather than empirical harm. Labaye has also become a discursive construct that is explicative of harm in other public law arenas. This article reveals the inconsistencies in applications of the Labaye test and considers whether a more principled definition of harm is needed in indecency and obscenity cases and beyond.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconstitutions of Harm: Novel Applications of the Labaye Test Since 2005\",\"authors\":\"Richard Jochelson, J. Gacek\",\"doi\":\"10.29173/ALR2543\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In R. v. Labaye, the Supreme Court revised the test for Criminal Code offences involving indecency and obscenity, replacing the previous community standards of tolerance test. Despite the Supreme Court’s demand for positive knowledge of (risk of) harm, the Labaye test still largely protects a normative vision of society rather than promoting human sexuality and freedom of expression. The judiciary post-Labaye continue to fill evidentiary vacuums with circumstantial evidence and intangible harms, informed by judicial tastes rather than empirical harm. Labaye has also become a discursive construct that is explicative of harm in other public law arenas. This article reveals the inconsistencies in applications of the Labaye test and considers whether a more principled definition of harm is needed in indecency and obscenity cases and beyond.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54047,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29173/ALR2543\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29173/ALR2543","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在R. v. Labaye案中,最高法院修订了涉及猥亵和淫秽的刑法典罪行的测试,取代了以前的社区容忍测试标准。尽管最高法院要求对伤害(风险)有积极的认识,但Labaye测试仍然在很大程度上保护了社会的规范愿景,而不是促进人类的性行为和言论自由。拉拜案之后的司法部门继续用间接证据和无形伤害来填补证据真空,这些证据是根据司法口味而不是经验伤害来提供的。Labaye也成为了一种阐释其他公法领域伤害的话语结构。本文揭示了Labaye测试应用中的不一致性,并考虑在猥亵和淫秽案件中是否需要一个更有原则的伤害定义。
Reconstitutions of Harm: Novel Applications of the Labaye Test Since 2005
In R. v. Labaye, the Supreme Court revised the test for Criminal Code offences involving indecency and obscenity, replacing the previous community standards of tolerance test. Despite the Supreme Court’s demand for positive knowledge of (risk of) harm, the Labaye test still largely protects a normative vision of society rather than promoting human sexuality and freedom of expression. The judiciary post-Labaye continue to fill evidentiary vacuums with circumstantial evidence and intangible harms, informed by judicial tastes rather than empirical harm. Labaye has also become a discursive construct that is explicative of harm in other public law arenas. This article reveals the inconsistencies in applications of the Labaye test and considers whether a more principled definition of harm is needed in indecency and obscenity cases and beyond.