pageok
pageok
pageok
Slippery Slopes in New Orleans and Baton Rouge:

I'll be in Louisiana this coming week, giving talks about The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope:

  1. Tuesday, February 10, 12:30 pm to 2 pm at Loyola of New Orleans Law School, room 111. Free.

  2. Tuesday, February 10, at 5 pm at Tulane Law School, faculty lounge. Free.

  3. Wednesday, February 11, 11:15 am (cash bar), 12 noon (lunch) at the Plimsoll Club of the World Trade Center, Galvez Room. Costs $45 per person, $25 for students and judicial law clerks; RSVP to jinman at liskow dot com, but it might be too late now.

  4. Thursday, February 12, 12:40 pm to 1:40 pm at Louisiana State University Law School, room 110. Free.

All events are put on by local Federalist Society chapters; the Wednesday lunch event is put on by the local lawyers' division, and the others by student groups. Many thanks to them for organizing everything!

kormal:
But if you speak at Loyola and Tulane, soon you'll have to speak at Cooley! Where will it end, professor? Where will it end?
2.8.2009 5:53pm
Fub:
I'll be in Louisiana this coming week, giving talks about The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope:
Don't forget to include Louisiana's special contribution to slippery slopes: gumbo mud.
2.8.2009 6:49pm
Observer:
How long can he milk this slippery slopes topic? I first came across one version of his slippery slope article in, what, 2003?
2.8.2009 7:32pm
TerrencePhilip:
Eugene, the Plimsoll Club sounds like a way to have a few drinks and hear you, but I have a trial that day, so I'll try to catch you Tuesday.

Re the faculty lounge- are you speaking again there, or is it just a meet-and-greet?
2.8.2009 7:33pm
neurodoc:
3 out of the 4 events are free, while the 4th will cost attendees anywhere from $25 to $45. Will great food and drink justify the cost of the 4th or is it that the lecture to be given there will be of higher caliber, more amusing, or something else?
2.8.2009 8:32pm
Kirk:
Slippery Slopes in New Orleans and Baton Rouge
Contra Fub, while the mud might indeed be slippery, I have to ask about the location: what slopes? It's really flat down there.
2.8.2009 8:45pm
nuncio:
Kirk- Not true at all. We are surrounded by slopes; we call them levees though.
2.8.2009 8:56pm
nuncio:
Correction: We are usually surrounded by levees and prefer it that way.
2.8.2009 8:57pm
Kirk:
nincio,

What you're saying is, it's so flat there if you want slippery slopes, you have to build artificial ones! I wonder if Eugene can work this into his intro somehow?
2.8.2009 10:03pm
JohnHarris:
Excited to hear you are coming to Baton Rouge. Those of us at Southern Law School Federalist Society are disappointed we missed out - but hopefully we can attend one of the other talks.
2.8.2009 10:17pm
Alligator:
Prof. Volokh,

Would you mind writing a post about the talks when you return? I've never liked the slippery slope argument. It recognize that it has valid uses but those uses seem to be few and far between; the slippery slope argument tends to emerge when a proposition otherwise lacks support and the speaker has resorted to fear-mongering. I'd be very interested to hear your opinions on it, especially if they're in support of the slippery slope.
2.8.2009 10:20pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Alligator: I have written about the subject, though perhaps at greater length than you might find useful. Here are links to

The Mechanisms of
the Slippery Slope, 116 Harvard Law Review 1026 (2003)
(a roughly 100-page law review article), an abridged, roughly 50-page version, and a 10-page version (cowritten with Ward Farnsworth as a
chapter in Farnsworth's The Legal Analyst).

Observer: I don't think there's a time limit on how long someone can talk about a subject. Of course, matters would be different at some point everyone will have read my 2003 article (or versions of it) -- but I regret to say that this point will never come.
2.9.2009 12:08am
UW3L:
"1. Tuesday, February 10, 12:30 pm to 2 pm at Loyola of New Orleans Law School, room 111. Free.

2. Tuesday, February 10, at 5 pm at Tulane Law School, faculty lounge. Free."

That's a bit of a drive! Think you can get between the two in time?
2.9.2009 1:45am
Donna B. (mail) (www):
I'm almost considering coming out of hibernation in Shreveport and trying to attend one of these lectures. But I probably wouldn't be allowed in :-)
2.9.2009 4:43am
Public_Defender (mail):
One rhetorical value of a "slippery slope" argument is that it assumes we are going down. Is it a slippery slope from recognizing the right or married couples to use contraception to the unrestricted right to abortion? Or is it a slippery slope from restricting abortions to criminalizing the use of birth control by married couples?
2.9.2009 5:07am
Tracy Johnson (www):
Be sure to bring an original Wham-O Slip'N Slide" to demonstrate your Slippery Slope:

Wham-O Slip'N Slide
2.9.2009 8:30am
Kirk:
PD,
One rhetorical value of a "slippery slope" argument is that it assumes we are going down.
Well, can you give any examples of someone using it in a context where the proposed change is not something the slippery-slope-claimer thinks is a step in the wrong direction?
2.9.2009 2:44pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
Alligator:

You really should read Professor Volokh's papers on the slippery slope. He does a good job of distinguishing when slippery slope arguments have validity (i.e., when there is some plausible mechanism that gets you from the present to the postulated nightmare scenario) and when they don't (either because the nightmare scenario isn't really a nightmare or because the mechanism for getting to the nightmare scenario is implausible).

It's great stuff.
2.9.2009 3:55pm
neurodoc:
The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope, 116 Harvard Law Review 1026 (2003) (a roughly 100-page law review article), an abridged, roughly 50-page version, and a 10-page version (cowritten with Ward Farnsworth as a chapter in Farnsworth's The Legal Analyst)
When will the movie be out?
2.10.2009 1:06pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.