Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Community standards

Contents:

Author Info

  • Miller, Alan D.

Abstract

I introduce a model of community standards relevant to the judicial determination of obscenity. Standards are defined as subjective judgments restricted only by a simple reasonableness condition. Individual standards are aggregated to form the community standard. Several axioms reflect legal concerns. These require that the community standard (a) preserve unanimous agreements, (b) become more permissive when all individuals become more permissive, and not discriminate, ex ante, (c) between individuals and (d) between works. I show that any rule which satisfies these properties must be “similar” to unanimity rule. I also explore the relationship between the model and the doctrinal paradox of Kornhauser and Sager [12].

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022053113001531
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Economic Theory.

Volume (Year): 148 (2013)
Issue (Month): 6 ()
Pages: 2696-2705

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:148:y:2013:i:6:p:2696-2705

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622869

Related research

Keywords: Community standards; Axioms; Obscenity; Aggregation; Doctrinal paradox;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. David Schmeidler, 2000. "Between LIberalism and Democracy," Working Papers 00-08, Ohio State University, Department of Economics.
  2. Biung-Ghi Ju, 2007. "Individual Powers and Social Consent: An Axiomatic Approach," Discussion Paper Series 0717, Institute of Economic Research, Korea University.
  3. Miller, Alan D., 2008. "Group identification," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 188-202, May.
  4. Kornhauser, Lewis A, 1992. "Modeling Collegial Courts. II. Legal Doctrine," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 441-70, October.
  5. Monjardet, B., 1990. "Arrowian characterizations of latticial federation consensus functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 51-71, August.
  6. Leclerc, B., 1984. "Efficient and binary consensus functions on transitively valued relations," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 45-61, August.
  7. Dinko Dimitrov & Thierry Marchant & Debasis Mishra, 2009. "Separability and aggregation of equivalence relations," Indian Statistical Institute, Planning Unit, New Delhi Discussion Papers 09-06, Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi, India.
  8. Peter Fishburn & Ariel Rubinstein, 1986. "Aggregation of equivalence relations," Journal of Classification, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 61-65, March.
  9. List, Christian & Pettit, Philip, 2002. "Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(01), pages 89-110, April.
  10. Barbera, Salvador & Sonnenschein, Hugo & Zhou, Lin, 1991. "Voting by Committees," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 595-609, May.
  11. Jean-Pierre Barthélemy & Bruno Leclerc & Bernard Monjardet, 1986. "On the use of ordered sets in problems of comparison and consensus of classifications," Journal of Classification, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 187-224, September.
  12. Kornhauser, Lewis A., 1992. "Modeling collegial courts I: Path-dependence," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 169-185, June.
  13. Monderer, Dov & Samet, Dov, 1989. "Approximating common knowledge with common beliefs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 170-190, June.
  14. Nehring, Klaus & Puppe, Clemens, 2007. "The structure of strategy-proof social choice -- Part I: General characterization and possibility results on median spaces," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 269-305, July.
  15. Christopher Chambers & Alan Miller, 2011. "Rules for aggregating information," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 75-82, January.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Nehring, Klaus & Pivato, Marcus & Puppe, Clemens, 2011. "Condorcet admissibility: Indeterminacy and path-dependence under majority voting on interconnected decisions," MPRA Paper 32434, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  2. Nehring, Klaus & Pivato, Marcus & Puppe, Clemens, 2013. "The Condorcet set: Majority voting over interconnected propositions," Working Paper Series in Economics 51, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Business Engineering.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:148:y:2013:i:6:p:2696-2705. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.