Band 45, Heft 1 - Themed Issue: The influence of media and the influence of new technologies on law: socio-legal-approach/Der Einfluss der Medien und der Einfluss der neuen Technologien auf das Recht: Rechtssoziologischer Ansatz Guest Editors: Stefan Machura, Iker Nabaskues Martínez de Eulate, und Francisco Javier Fernández Galarreta

A typical narrative pattern in law-related popular culture involves a problem-solving individual encountering and overcoming various obstacles. In many products such as films, TV series, or operas, the character of the protagonist develops in response to challenges. Witnessing this process, the audience is suggested a message on the nature of the law, legal personnel, and legal institutions, in the final analysis, if the law can be trusted. Characters help to make a story understandable to an audience and to make any message stick. Popular culture has a large arsenal of character stories which can be drawn on and are familiar to the audience. To different degrees, the viewers or listeners are knowledgeable in relation to pop cultural conventions and “media literate”. They enjoy recognising common tropes and relish their variation as long as their understanding is not stretched too far. As much as the message of law-related formats, found in film, TV, or e. g., opera, reinforces existing stereotypes, it also involves constant variation and innovation. In this way, following the fate of pop cultural characters contributes to conservation and change in society.

Law is not a question of simple clear rules applied objectively. Traditional black letter law continues to be the main focus of legal studies. There are a number of areas which involve laws ending up being “bent out of shape”. “Rule distortion” happens where those involved in the justice system determine what issues are to be proceeded against. There are also important differences in how the law plays out depending on who is involved in making decisions. The politics of the judiciary has been an issue which has attracted attention both at the general and individual level. There is also the question of how the law is seen by those whom the law is intended to protect and serve and how they act accordingly. This latter issue is the one with which this article is concerned. It surveys the paths taken by those with an interest in these questions, particularly the author’s own efforts, and seeks to suggest directions for the future, given the changes in technology which have occurred in the 21 st century.

The relationship between media portrayals of the criminal justice system, including the various individuals, and the viewing public has often been an area of controversy. This has generally been couched in terms of ‘media effects’. In 2015, Netflix launched the first season of its docuseries “ Making a Murdere r”, which proved both popular and controversial and covered a ‘real-life’ potential miscarriage of justice. Whilst not unique in terms of the subject matter, “ Making a Murderer ” generated widespread debate and audience engagement via social media. A critical review of a true crime case is one example of a programme that utilises the criminal justice system as the subject matter. This article sets out several key issues. First the obvious expansion of true crime and proposing a system of classification. Second, the underpinning psychology that explains the audience attraction. Finally, it covers some of the issues that have been raised by the portrayal and interaction of new technology with criminal justice, the so-called CSI effect . It concludes that the primary issue for the criminal justice system is no longer rooted in technology but rather how programmes may be constructed and presented to the audience.

The paper aims to analyse the practice of judicialisation of cancel culture in Chile. Particularly, it tackles the recent boost of constitutional litigation regarding fundamental rights – honour and privacy – allegedly affected by online publications in cases related to sexual offenders. In so doing, it explores and enquires about the possible affectation of the due process of law and the consequences of massive social network denunciationsand its impact in court litigation.

Hannah Arendt, with her teleological concept of human action, places the individual at the centre of politics, in the sense that politics can only be the result of bringing into play all his or her capacities. For Aristotle, the human condition has three attributes: the animal, the social and the spiritual. The debate on transhumanism cannot be limited exclusively to the possibilities of improvement that such a philosophical movement can bring to society. It has deeper implications that require taking into consideration the very nature of the human condition as developed by Arendt and the imperishable Stagirite. The T-800 in the film “Terminator” (USA 1984) and the Replicant in “Blade Runner” (USA 1982) are both expression of the projection of human anxiety about the effects of the relationship between culture and technology as well as antithetical expressions of a possible future evolution of the android. Only a clear understanding of what constitutes human nature through reflection on its most unique capabilities will enlighten us in judging whether the enhancements of transhumanism can be considered beneficial or dangerous in the future.

The development of high-quality artificial intelligence technologies and their applications has revolutionized our society. With their advent, a large number of service professions have been forced to adapt their way of acting to these new times. In this context, the purpose of this article will be to reflect on the impact that these technologies may have on some of the tasks related to the field of the administration of justice, more specifically, on the work of the staff that make up the judicial office and on the work of judges and magistrates.

This article examines the evolution of the law’s attempts to regulate technological advancements in the entertainment industry in general, and the sale and resale of event tickets in particular. Drawing on the analytical framework developed by Roger Brownsword, where he identifies three stages in the evolution of the law’s regulation of technology, we begin by tracing the key legal interventions in the entertainment industry to demonstrate how there is an increasing dissonance between the development of new technologies and their effective regulation by the law. As a result of this dissonance, a more effective approach could be to use technological developments as a means of regulation, instead of being the subject of regulation. The article then moves on to evaluate how advances in ticketing technology can be used to regulate the unlawful resale of event tickets, known as ticket touting or ticket scalping. It concludes by arguing that although technological developments often shape legal and regulatory environments, law is only ever part of the answer, and that technology should be used as a way of regulating the resale of event tickets.

The recent rise of legal tech firms has led to significant changes in the German legal services market, challenging the quasi-monopoly of traditional lawyers. Our paper explores this evolving relationship between legal tech firms and traditional lawyers in Germany, focusing on how these groups compete, cooperate, and forge distinct professional identities. Drawing on Andrew Abbott’s theory of professions, we examine whether there is a jurisdictional conflict between them, i. e., whether they compete for the same work-related tasks. By conducting semi-structured interviews with individuals working in the field and a document analysis of relevant public statements and legal texts, we find that there is at least some degree of jurisdictional conflict, albeit limited to a specific segment of the legal services market, particularly tenancy law. In addition, legal tech firms have developed work practices that differ significantly from those of traditional lawyers, emphasizing automated workflows and largely eschewing in-person consultations. These novel practices have also led to the emergence of a new identity for legal tech entrepreneurs, one that emphasizes entrepreneurship and consumer advocacy. Despite the differences and conflicts, there currently appears to be a cooperative division between traditional lawyers and legal tech companies, suggesting functional interdependence in certain market segments.

Zusammenfassung Ein Kongress zum thematischen Schwerpunkt „Zugänge zum Recht – zugängliche Rechte?“ sollte sich diesem Thema auch selbstreflexiv stellen und nach der Zugänglichkeit rechtssoziologischer Forschung außerhalb der engen wissenschaftlichen Diskursfelder fragen. Im Zentrum des Eröffnungsvortrags zum fünften Kongress der deutschsprachigen Rechtssoziologie-Vereinigungen steht deshalb die Frage nach dem Verhältnis der Rechtssoziologie bzw. interdisziplinären Rechtsforschung zur sogenannten Praxis, also zu relevanten Umwelten außerhalb des Wissenschaftssystems. Ausgehend von der Beobachtung, dass auch Wissenschaft in Zeiten großer gesellschaftlicher Umbrüche ihre Positionierung in der Gesellschaft neu ausloten muss, wird in einer ersten Annäherung nach dem Zusammenhang zwischen wissenschaftlicher Funktion und Leistung gefragt. Faktisch wird dieser Zusammenhang wissenschaftsintern oft als Spannungsverhältnis beobachtet und in eine Differenz zwischen Grundlagen- und anwendungsorientierte Forschung gebracht – mit häufig wenig Austausch zwischen den beiden Forschungsorientierungen. In einem zweiten Schritt soll nach den Herausforderungen des Forschens mit starkem Praxisbezug gefragt werden. Das Konzept der Grenzstellenarbeit bietet erkenntnisreiche Anregungen dafür, wie der Erhalt wissenschaftlicher Autonomie bzw. Grenzziehung bei gleichzeitig großer Umweltoffenheit wahrscheinlicher wird. In einem dritten Schritt gilt es danach zu fragen, welche Formen es konkret annehmen kann, wenn Wissenschaft und Praxis miteinander in Austausch treten oder gar kooperieren, und welche intermediären Begegnungs- und Kommunikationsformate hierfür gewinnbringend erscheinen. Abschließend steht die Einladung zu einer Perspektivenverschiebung: weg von der Beobachtung unzureichender Rezeption rechtssoziologischer Forschung durch die Praxis hin zur proaktiven Gestaltung der Schnittstellen zur und Zusammenarbeit mit der sogenannten Praxis – im Sinne einer translationalen Forschungshaltung.