Live blogs can’t handle the truth? A contemporary cross-cultural consideration of transparency and procedural justice

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
Lisa Flower
{"title":"Live blogs can’t handle the truth? A contemporary cross-cultural consideration of transparency and procedural justice","authors":"Lisa Flower","doi":"10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reporting from trials using live blogs to continuously inform readers about courtroom events have rapidly become an established part of legal life and are often assumed to fulfill demands of open justice. However, a deep sociolegal understanding of how legal professionals perceive live blogs as affecting procedural justice is currently missing, as is a thick understanding of what transparency means to legal professionals. As more detailed knowledge on contemporary transparency will contribute to understanding the acceptance and resistance to open justice and specific reporting formats, this study focuses on the interlinking of legal professionals, transparency and live blogs. A qualitative cross-cultural approach finds that legal professionals consider Bentham’s tenets to be partially transformed, in particular regarding the original truth function. Rather than enabling truths, legal professionals perceive live blogs as a threat to truths. Nevertheless, live blogs are considered to provide good enough transparency in relation to specific jurisdictional contexts.","PeriodicalId":36457,"journal":{"name":"Onati Socio-Legal Series","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Onati Socio-Legal Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Reporting from trials using live blogs to continuously inform readers about courtroom events have rapidly become an established part of legal life and are often assumed to fulfill demands of open justice. However, a deep sociolegal understanding of how legal professionals perceive live blogs as affecting procedural justice is currently missing, as is a thick understanding of what transparency means to legal professionals. As more detailed knowledge on contemporary transparency will contribute to understanding the acceptance and resistance to open justice and specific reporting formats, this study focuses on the interlinking of legal professionals, transparency and live blogs. A qualitative cross-cultural approach finds that legal professionals consider Bentham’s tenets to be partially transformed, in particular regarding the original truth function. Rather than enabling truths, legal professionals perceive live blogs as a threat to truths. Nevertheless, live blogs are considered to provide good enough transparency in relation to specific jurisdictional contexts.
直播博客不能处理真相?透明度与程序公正的当代跨文化思考
使用实时博客报道审判,不断向读者通报法庭事件,已迅速成为法律生活的一部分,通常被认为是为了满足公开司法的要求。然而,对于法律专业人士如何看待直播博客对程序正义的影响,目前缺乏深刻的社会法律理解,对于透明度对法律专业人士意味着什么,也缺乏深刻的理解。由于对当代透明度的更详细了解将有助于理解对公开司法和特定报告格式的接受和抵制,本研究将重点放在法律专业人员、透明度和实时博客的相互联系上。一种定性的跨文化方法发现,法律专业人士认为边沁的原则被部分地改变了,特别是关于原来的真理功能。法律专业人士认为直播博客是对真相的威胁,而不是促成真相。然而,对于特定的司法管辖环境,实时博客被认为提供了足够好的透明度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Onati Socio-Legal Series
Onati Socio-Legal Series Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
66
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信