Humanities desk
< February 25	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 26[edit]

US Court of appeals oral argument transcripts[edit]

I recently saw ‘On the Basis of Sex’ about RBG’s involvement in Moritz v. Commissioner and I’m interested to find out how realistic the courtroom scenes were. Does anyone know if/ where the transcript or recording of oral argument before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is available? Amisom (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The minutes of all cases, including oral arguments, are kept. A case from 1972 will likely be in hard-copy form only, not on the Internet. Being at the 10th circuit court, the entire case should be in the bound historical section of the court library. If it isn't there, it is because it was purposely removed by court order. I personally do not see why that particular case would be removed or even redacted in any way. Unfortunately, those references are for on-site use only. You cannot check it out. So, you'd have to go to the library and scan the original copy yourself. You can do a freedom of information request, but that only means that they have to make it available. It is available. It is sitting on a library shelf. So, I doubt that would help. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Do you mean without paying a lot? If not, are you sure there aren't other ways? I found this form for US Courts [1], it includes a box to tick for appeals so I presume it also covers appeals courts. However I couldn't find any info if there's a time limit on how far back you can request (although it's clearly also intended for real time transcripts). Also no idea if this is something available to any US resident willing to pay the fee, although I don't see any info given that would allow them to identify you as someone allowed anyway other than generic stuff like name. You obviously will need to pay the probably quite expensive fee. There's also this [2] although not being a lawyer or having any experience with this, I have no idea if the entire case file includes a transcript of the case, or just documents filed with the court (or whatever). It sounds like it did here [3] but that's a different court and maybe the person just used the term loosely. (Again although a different court etc, maybe it will give you some idea of possible fees in terms of cost per page I mean since I assume it's far smaller, and also ways to find what you want.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amisom: The court of appeal's website is here: https://www.uscourts.gov/. If you poke around, you may be able to find a link to order a transcript. According to [4], you can order a copy of the recording (if there is one) for $31.00. RudolfRed (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would call the 10th circuit's library, or better yet the clerk's office and ask.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Communication Philosophy[edit]

I have a project in which I'm breaking down the ethical arguments about a few internet-based situations into well-established philosophical definitions. I assume the following exists as a specific theory or concept of philosophy, but I don't know what it is called. The situation: The interaction is defined as being good or bad. The intention doesn't matter. The result doesn't matter. It is purely the interaction between two entities. In this example, the action of posting a message on this page is good or bad. The action of reading the message is good or bad. The message itself, the intention of posting it, and the results of others reading and/or responding to it don't matter. What is the proper term for this? I am temporarily calling it "communication" philosophy, which I am certain is not correct. I used "action" above, but it isn't all actions. It is communications using technology. Perhaps the only terms I will find don't include the limit of technology, but it should be limited to communication. 64.53.18.247 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are you defining "good" and "bad"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being able to post a message on a webpage and others can read it is called social media. Using WordPress to modify a webpage and uploading it to your website is called publishing (or blogging).
Sleigh (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Berne developed the concept of Transactional analysis where social transactions are analyzed to determine a person's ego state (whether parent-like, child-like, or adult-like) as a basis for understanding behavior. DroneB (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technoethics comes into play here, but it is still a very unorganized field of buzz words. It is most related to relationship ethics. The problem is that since about 1982 (with the work of Carol Gilligan), relationship ethics has been primarily focused on personal psychiatry. That wasn't the original intention of the field. Originally, it was a theory that communication between humans is inherently imbued with ethics. It did not define the mechanism of communication. Therefore, you can have direct face-to-face communication or you have communication in which one person writes a message down and another person reads it. For example, is it ethical for someone to answer a philosophy question with "How are you defining 'good' and 'bad'?" 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the closest thing we have to an article on that is at Ethics_of_technology#Information_and_communication_technoethics, but it's only loosely related. Communication theory should be a good resource, but instead is a total mess. Matt Deres (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]