Exaggeration: Advertising, Law and Medical Quackery in Britain, c. 1840–1914.
This article revisits the nineteenth-century debate about medical quackery in Britain, to examine its implications for the history of modern advertising. It makes two related claims. First, the prevalent view of advertising as a field prone to exaggeration, often taken as obvious, has a legal histor...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Legal History Vol. 42; no. 2; pp. 202 - 232 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Aug2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=151609592&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 151609592 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 01440365 7JG jtl: Journal of Legal History issn: 01440365 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Aug2021 vid: 42 iid: 2 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd artinfo: ui: 151609592 10.1080/01440365.2021.1946209 ppf: 202 ppct: 30 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 1.9MB tig: atl: Exaggeration: Advertising, Law and Medical Quackery in Britain, c. 1840–1914. aug: au: Rosenberg, Anat affil: Harry Radzyner Law School, the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel su: Medical laws British Medical Association Advertising laws Advertising United Kingdom sug: subj: United Kingdom Medical laws British Medical Association Advertising laws Advertising keyword: advertising Bell v Bashford and British Medical Association boundary work cultural legal history Dakhyl v Labouchere Defamation Hunter v Sharpe quackery Stevens v The British Medical Association Tucker v Wakley ab: This article revisits the nineteenth-century debate about medical quackery in Britain, to examine its implications for the history of modern advertising. It makes two related claims. First, the prevalent view of advertising as a field prone to exaggeration, often taken as obvious, has a legal history. The circumstances of the quackery debate led to a legal elaboration and formalization of views of advertising as an epistemologically doubtful but not illegal field. Second, advertising's status as exaggeration was part of a legally supported cultural division of labour – or legal boundary work, which carved differentiated roles for science and the market in modern Britain whereby science was increasingly defined by restraint, and the market by its lack. The analysis examines the implications, while also offering new insights on the role of law in the history of quackery, and examining untapped sources, particularly a set of libel cases that developed a legal definition of quackery. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Journal of Legal History is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Journal of Legal History holder: Taylor & Francis Ltd dt: @attributes: year: 2021 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|