Band 8, Heft 2

The present study seeks to untangle the courtroom trial’s sequential categorization of the topical device of Amber Heard’s ‘lies’ as YouTubed by the Daily Mail . Towards this end, the study develops and utilizes a synergetic approach of the ethnomethodological method of membership categorization analysis (MCA), the reconsidered model, the forensic-linguistics model of analysing courtroom trials, and translanguaging emoji pattern analysis. The following hypothesis has been tested: YouTube-mediated courtroom trials can publicly bring out an emergent digital genre with a special kind of translocal participatory engagement of trial participants, YouTube creators, and YouTube users. Towards proving the foregoing hypothesis, three sets of YouTube-video data have been investigated. The analysis has proven the study’s hypothesis with three findings ensuing. First, a new digital genre of trial emerged with the shift from the local setting of courtroom to the translocal/global setting of YouTube. Second, the YouTube translocal affordances have enabled a situated membership categorization of Heard as a lying defendant and Vasquez as a heroic lawyer. Third, a set of morally contrastive devices have been detected through the metadiscursive practices of enabling the internet/video and video-moment reporting and quoting as well as the translanguaging practice of emoji assignment by YouTube users.

Constructing a green and harmonious cyberspace in a network content ecosystem is a beautiful vision for millions of netizens. This study, by establishing a self-compiled corpus of judicial discourse from digital platform typical cases in China and using a combination of corpus-based approach and case analysis method, represents the development status of the Chinese network content ecosystem in order to develop a model for understanding and evaluating a network content ecosystem. Based on the analysis results of Chinese judicial discourse, an evaluation model, namely the People, Object, Technology, Organization, Government, Environment Framework (POTOGE), is derived after examining and evaluating four conceptual frameworks of the People, Process and Technology Framework (PPT), the Technology, Organization and Environment Framework (TOE), the Real Access/Real Impact Framework (RA/RI) and the People, Technology, Organization and Environment Framework (PTOE). To some extent, the POTOGE evaluation model presents a holistic and comprehensive perspective for understanding and evaluating a network content ecosystem and its key components, which can provide a reference for testing standards to ensure the sustainable development of current and future network content ecosystems. Meanwhile, the insights obtained from this study may help deepen our understanding of the judicial discourse and its thinking in the network content ecosystem. The analysis results of typical cases on digital platform can provide a reference for the formulation of future relevant laws and regulations and improve the legal protection and prevention awareness of society.

This paper delves into the intricate relationship between euthanasia and the perpetual pendulum concept, which challenges conventional linear understandings of time and legal principles. Examining euthanasia through the perpetual pendulum concept, inspired by Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizome theory, underscores that the acceptance or prohibition of euthanasia is deeply intertwined with evolving societal values and conceptual frameworks. It advocates for adaptable legal interpretations and an acknowledgment of the relative nature of time, allowing for the reevaluation and reinterpretation of legal principles in response to changing perspectives. The legal landscape of euthanasia in Australia, with varying state laws and potential conflicts with federal statutes, serves as a compelling case study. It emphasizes the ongoing need for discussion, adaptation, and ethical introspection to balance individual autonomy with broader legal and ethical considerations in the context of end-of-life care.

This study explores the use of targeted (dis)agreement by judges in leave to appeal decisions of the HKSAR appellate courts. This is achieved by applying proclaim (i.e., pronounce, concur, and endorse) and disclaim (i.e., deny and counter) of Appraisal theory and a typology of discourse targets (i.e., General, Responsive, and Specific). The study identifies significant frequency differences in the use of targeted (dis)agreement between a corpus of grant and a corpus of dismissal decisions. Amongst other things, the findings show that, in grant decisions, judges used a greater amount of General proclaim (i.e., pronounce) to convey how applications satisfied the relevant legal requirements. Contrastively, in dismissal decisions, judges used a greater amount of General/Responsive proclaim (i.e., endorse and concur) to express agreement with the lower courts, case law, and general principles of law (which essentially functioned as rebuttals to the arguments submitted by applicants). General concur was also used to highlight general legal principles so as to classify current cases negatively. The present study also examines the impact of targeted (dis)agreement on outcomes (i.e., grant or dismiss). The findings demonstrate that General/Responsive proclaim and General/Responsive disclaim acted as independent predictors with either a positive or negative influence on the outcomes. The implications of these findings are discussed in the final section of the study.

In her short story collection of A Few Days in the Country and Other Stories (2015), contemporary Australian novelist Elizabeth Harrower skillfully portrays a cohort of children who have come of age in diverse fractured family settings since the 1960s. This article delves into the realm of child welfare and best interests in Australia, elucidating the intricate web of family laws that govern these principles. It casts a revealing light on the myriad challenges children confront in contexts marked by family violence, parental separation, and child custody and adoption. This analysis exposes the unfortunate reality where children’s rights are frequently subverted by guardians, effectively preventing their meaningful involvement in familial decision-making. In instances of family violence, children are relegated to the role of silent victims, rendered voiceless by their inability to resist. During divorce proceedings, children are relegated to the sidelines, unable to actively participate in the decision-making process, resulting in the neglect or outright harm of their best interests. Children who find themselves in foster care or adoption situations often respond with unprecedented rebellion, asserting their independence and self-determination beneath the facade of silent victimhood. Tragically, their fundamental rights consistently remain inadequately protected. By undertaking a critical examination of the dynamic between adults and children within the framework of family law and by juxtaposing it with the contemporary portrayal of marginalized children in Australia, as exemplified in Harrower’s works, this article offers multifaceted insights that can guide efforts to safeguard children’s rights and enhance the development and implementation of legislation pertaining to children.

Based on a self-built corpus of Chinese cybersecurity legislation, this study explores the construction of China’s official cybersecurity discourse via deconstructing cybersecurity legislation from the perspective of system theory. Analysis focusing on the internal features of the discourse obtains the themes, actors, and legal relations in China’s cybersecurity legislation. Among four pairs of legal relations, system theory provides an explanation for the tension between public-private legal relationship and private-private legal relationship, that is, whether the legislative system chooses to delegate network operators with administrative function depends on how the system perceives the nature of cybersecurity issues and integrate new issues into securitization process. Furthermore, the external features of legislation discourse reveal the changes in the number of all levels of cybersecurity legislation. It is found that the coupling resonance of the political system and the legal system promotes the development of relevant legislation, and facilitates the self-development legislation system to transfer from diversified legislation to unified legislation.

In appeal cases, judges from different levels of courts may have varying perspectives on the same set of facts, leading to different sentencing decisions. This study focuses on a specific traffic incident case in Hong Kong. In this case, a trial judge and a collegial panel at the High Court hold divergent opinions regarding the same set of facts, expressed through two different narrations and varying degrees of leniency in their rulings. By applying the framework of Appraisal Theory within a contextualized analysis, this paper reveals that the trial judge and the appellate judges employ differing amounts of evaluative expressions in reaching their decisions. I argue that evaluative language functions as a discursive strategy for negotiating justice, encompassing the narration of legal facts and the construction of legal arguments across different levels of the court system. Furthermore, through an examination of discrepancies between the two language versions, I contend that evaluative expressions, particularly the degree of attitude within the Appraisal Framework, warrant attention in the practice of legal translation. This attention is crucial for achieving a consistent level of emotive entropy in both language versions.

The paper focuses on the growing problem of human–wildlife conflicts that are reported in urbanized areas in the Republic of Poland. The twenty-first century is the period of increased synanthropization and synurbanization of animals. The presence of animals in urbanized areas has both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, contact with nature is considered beneficial for our psyche, but on the other hand wild animals damage property, participate in road collisions and sometimes pose threat to human health of life. Once the problems occur, citizens expect the authorities take some action. The aim of the paper is to present frequently conflicting social expectations concerning the problem at hand, legal solutions available and laws of nature. The research methods applied included: the analysis of legal provisions binding in the Republic of Poland combined with the interviews with representatives of institutions enforcing law in that respect, empirical observation of social attitudes and analyses of pertinent literature. The results reveals that inhabitants of cities in general opt for solutions that seem to be non-lethal for animals as they do not realize the risks involved for humans and animals. At the same time legal provisions are not sufficiently exhaustive to enable efficient problem solution.

The technological adoption and widespread use of generative AI, as represented by ChatGPT, have altered the conventional mode of interaction between humans and AI and profoundly changed the way our society operates. In response to the multifarious risks associated with generative AI, spanning ethical considerations, intellectual property protection, privacy and data protection, market monopoly, cybercrime, and data security concerns, discussions on the status of AI subjects and legal regulation have surfaced both on a global and domestic scale. It is argued in the present study that generative AI governance should uphold the principle of reconciling safety and development, craft an AI code of ethics in line with the umbrella of the human-centered principle, and promote a comprehensive legal framework of AI based on general AI legislation, supplemented by specialized management approaches for generative AI, and underpinned by established legal norms.