Hide
Show all
Email this article The Impact of Online Media on Legal Discourse
Abstract
This article examines the methodological challenges and difficulties created by the emergence of new forms of legal discourse. These are provided by the new channels of communication, collectively found within the “mass media” and concerns online media: portals, blogs, social networking applications, etc. Since analytical theories of legal discourse were developed before the IT revolution, it is important to consider to what extent existing theories of legal discourse are adequate, given the contemporary picture of the phenomenon. The article is scientific but also contains some reflexions in the field of legal methodology due to its subject. There are formulated two research theses. The first concerns the assumption that due to the expansion of mass media, legal discourse is losing its previous hermetic character. The second assumes that the research programme of analytical jurisprudence, within which previous theories of legal discourse have been developed, requires appropriate modifications to capture the new forms in which it is conducted. The paper concludes by formulating possible directions for the development of a methodology for creating theories of legal discourse.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
LITERATURE
Alchourrón C.E., The Intuitive Background of Normative Legal Discourse and Its Formalization, “Journal of Philosophical Logic” 1972, vol. 1(3–4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00255572.
Alexy R., Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie derjuristischen Begründung, Frankfurt am Main 1978.
Austin J.L., How to Do Things with Words, Oxford 1962.
Bator A., Postanalityczna teoria i filozofia prawa. Nowe szanse, nowe zagrożenia?, “Przegląd Prawa i Administracji” 2015, vol. 102.
Bróżek P., Czy adwokaci powinni się reklamować?, “Palestra” 2021, no. 7–8.
Butler B.E., Dworkin’s “Semantic Sting” and Behavioral Pragmatics, [in:] Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy: Perspectives in Pragmatics, eds. A. Capone, M. Carapezza, F. Lo Piparo, Cham 2018, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72173-6_13.
Cosper C.L., The Expert Mind in the Age of Junk Data, “Cogent Social Sciences” 2016, vol. 2(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1198218.
Dworkin R., Law’s Empire, Cambridge 1988.
Fleischer M., Ogólna teoria komunikacji, Wrocław 2007.
Gizbert-Studnicki T., Dyrda A., Grabowski A., Metodologiczne dychotomie. Krytyka pozytywistycznych teorii prawa, Warszawa 2016.
Grabowski A., Prawnicze pojęcie obowiązywania prawa stanowionego, Kraków 2009.
Habermas J., Faktyczność i obowiązywanie Teoria dyskursu wobec zagadnień prawa i demokratycznego państwa prawnego, Warszawa 2005.
Hart H.L.A., The Concept of Law, Oxford 1994.
Justice Sales Rt Hon Lord, Modern Statutory Interpretation, “Statute Law Review” 2017, vol. 38(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmw041.
Lee P.S.N., Mass Media and Quality of Life, [in:] Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, ed. A.C. Michalos, Dordrecht 2014, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_1738.
Lem S., Bomba megabitowa, Warszawa 1999.
Lemańska J., Problem of Applying the Law on Positivist Grounds, Judge’s Dilemmas, Judicial Paradoxes, “Prawo i Więź” 2020, no. 3.
Leszczyński L., Wykładnia operatywna (podstawowe właściwości), “Państwo i Prawo” 2009, no. 6.
Luhmann N., Społeczne systemy. Zarys teorii ogólnej, Kraków 2007.
Melissaris E., The Limits of Institutionalised Legal Discourse, “Ratio Juris” 2005, vol. 18(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2005.00310.x.
Morawski L., Argumentacje, racjonalność prawa i postępowanie dowodowe, Toruń 1988.
Perelman C., Logika prawnicza. Nowa retoryka, Warszawa 1984.
Pichlak M., The Law’s Autonomy and a Practical Law-View: Preliminaries to Legal Discourse Analysis, “Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics” 2014, vol. 4(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/wrlae-2015-0006.
Rasmussen D., Ideal Speech Situation, [in:] The Cambridge Habermas Lexicon, eds. A. Allen, E. Mendieta, Cambridge 2019, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316771303.048.
Schusser F., Judicial Activism in a Comparative Perspective, Heidelberg 2018.
Skąpska G., Prawo w ponowoczesnym społeczeństwie, “Zarządzanie Publiczne” 2008, no. 4(6).
Stray J., Institutional Counter-disinformation Strategies in a Networked Democracy, [in:] Companion Proceedings of the 2019 World Wide Web Conference (WWW ’19): Association for Computing Machinery, New York 2019, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3308560.3316740.
Teubner G., Autopoiesis in Law and Society: A Rejoinder to Blankenburg, “Law & Society Review” 1984, vol. 18(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3053406.
Toffler A., Trzecia fala, Warszawa 1986.
Virilio P., The Information Bomb, London–New York 2006.
Winczorek J., Zniknięcie dwunastego wielbłąda. O socjologicznej teorii prawa Niklasa Luhmanna, Warszawa 2021.
Wróblewski J., Postawa filozoficzna i afilozoficzna we współczesnej teorii prawa, [in:] Pisma wybrane, ed. M. Zirk-Sadowski, Warszawa 2015.
ONLINE SOURCES
Grabowski A., Dyskurs prawniczy jako przypadek szczególny ogólnego dyskursu praktycznego, https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/item/149556/grabowski_dyskurs_prawniczy_jako_przypadek_szczegolny_ogolnego_dyskursu_praktycznego_2003.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (access: 9.12.2023).
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2023.32.5.249-264
Date of publication: 2023-12-31 14:29:35
Date of submission: 2023-05-07 18:35:35
Statistics
Indicators
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2023 Artur Kotowski
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.