Context and Summary of Presentation (Naomi)
Peter Goodrich’s essay Law falls within the “Society” section of Critical Terms for Media Studies. A professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, Goodrich is a scholar of critical legal theory. Accordingly, his contribution to Critical Terms opens with a kind of contradiction or dialectic about the nature of “free speech”. There seems to be a legal guarantee to free speech embedded within the United States’ Constitution; in fact, it is embedded in the First Amendment. However, the presence of licensing, censorship, and regulation are also well-known factors of public broadcasting– and the general public knows this. We believe this chapter is important for the class to understand, because it pertains to current events and is a part of the social framework we exist in as media-makers. How does the law work as a system which mediates the kinds of speech we can air on public channels? Goodrich’s argument begins by convincing readers that the law mediates our very self-perceptions and behaviour, in order to then answer this question.
In our presentation on September 10, our group sought to structure the arc of Goodrich’s essay by working from the most abstract and yet “frontal” part of the argument: the image of the law. As our peers who presented on Image reminded us, there is deep power in promulgating and controlling icons and symbols, which then become normalized to the point of representing an institution in the public eye. The image of the law is Your Honour; it is cloaked and robed, and built into the architecture of court buildings (Critical Terms, 250-252). A comprehensive understanding of the law is gate-kept from the everyday person, making use of esoteric language which both obscures meaning and contributes to the “theatrical” nature of courtroom behaviour and ritual.
We then attempted to explain the aspect of nomos: how the law is able to evolve and be re-interpreted by officials with “blind” judgement. “The judge is the bearer of the oracles, the custodian of an antique and continuing prior knowledge or precedent, not merely the rule but the nomos of law. This nomos, to borrow from early Greek sources, refers to a method, a melody or rhythm that precedes positive law and makes it possible” (Critical Terms, 252). In a way, this might explain how we accept the malleability and ever-specifying/ ever-overturning nature of the law to be able to restrict our speech in certain cases.
Expanding on Juridification (Celeste)
Law seeps into our lives every day. From the second we are born, we are made one with the law. Through birth certificates, social security numbers, passports, identification cards, they are all legal documents that “prove” our existence, and without them we are considered illegal, and have difficulty accessing things like healthcare, education, travel, employment, housing, marriage, and voting. Without legality, humans are left with nothing in today’s society. We can think about Homo juridicus, the reminder that law doesn’t just regulate us but constitutes us, the way we live, and how we act. In our daily lives, law exists and rules us there too. In our workspaces, our employers set our hours, pay, protections, and benefits, while workplace law like anti-discrimination, safety law, and unions, set what’s acceptable for you. In public spaces, traffic laws keep us in check while walking and driving. You stop at red lights, yield at yellow, wait for the walk sign or go to a designated intersection to cross the road. In your family, marriage, child custody, divorce, inheritance, all regulated by legal frameworks. Whether or not you have interacted with what we think of as law- eg, a court case, jail, lawyers, suing, jury duty- you are consistently governed, mediated, and controlled by the law.
Juridification absorbs us in other aspects than personally as well. It controls licensing, surveillance, control over the image of justice, regulation of speech and decency, historical censorship, and more. Goodrich covers this and more in his chapter about Law as a critical media term, and we covered it in our presentation. Licensing and censorship is a large part of our world today and its fully ruling media by law. Through laws like The Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934, licenses were restricted to only those with appropriate character, public interest, citizenship, and morality. Citizenship is an important part of these acts and the presentation of licensing, as it is a direct connection to how law can control everything that we do in our day to day lives. Law controls and mediates everyone, but access to law and the ways it is upheld is exclusive to a select few.
Relevance of Theory Today (Bridghet)
To further explore the exclusivity of law and the methods of which it is upheld, conducted an interview with Phillip Duguay. Duguay is the former Vice-President of Grid United who is a registered lobbyist that has worked with many advocacy groups for the renewable energy legislation. While conducting the interview, I noticed Duguay redefining the Image of Law in the present media and highlighted some of the extreme lengths that the judiciary system is reinforcing its power.
“The law is being diluted by the media which is fracturing traditional media and is becoming an antiquated beast; the entering effect of American politics/Western World.” Duguay stated. With an extreme expansion of accessible information channels, information has changed from rigid and transparent to malleable and targeted. This change of information distribution has resulted in formerly strong institutions’ respect to be watered down which leads to retaliation by those institutions with more extreme methods. Duguay gave a local and timely example of this kind of retaliation with the case of Doug Ford. The Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, has continuously discounted the prestige of electoral platforms by his polarizing use of social media. Ford uses his public platform to target the electoral system of which he is trying to gain trust.
In another macro-example of the reimaging of law, Donald Trump has continuously used the media to dilute his authority and then used legislation to punish his critics. The most recent instance of this would be Trump’s involvement in Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension by ABC after he commented on right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk’s death. Deemed insensitive by the right-community, Kimmel’s speech resulted in the chairman of the Federal Communications Committee, who was appointed by Trump, making a serious legal case against him. Many colleagues and supporters have rallied for Kimmel and state that this suspension is a clear example of censorship and a violation of his right to free speech. Currently, the judiciary system of North America is attacking itself, which has led to a division within their respective societies.
Philip Duguay reiterates why the development of the internet and social media has caused these rifts by stating, “Hate speech in the media, by the alternative right wing and extreme left wing creates an environment of fear and mistrust in media and elected officials, laws, judiciary. The system is delegitimized and leads to polarization. This polarization makes it increasingly harder to be a moderate.”
Ultimately Duguay concludes the interview by approaching some solutions. Though the media and legislative focus has drifted away from renewable energy, Duguay is still adamant on its importance and states that based on Canadians’ voting habits, people long for a more united government. He concluded his remarks by wondering , “if there could be a more proactive response by the government. Canadians want an interregional powergrid; shouldn’t the government be tackling it?” It is becoming seemingly more apparent that the judiciary system is becoming a battle for authority. Will law continue to be an untouchable symbol in society’s iconography, or will someone be the sole authoritarian?
Further Connections (Xelena)
Overall, the arguments we made in our presentation and that Duguay presented in his interview all relate back to the rest of the critical terms presented in class–specifically how these systems govern our media yet are also mediated by it. In our case, law governs media through the ever-present threat of litigation and censorship, yet is influenced by the media through its authority on the legal image. This dialectical relationship between systems and media is apparent throughout time, history, and differing institutions. Writing governs media by controlling how we communicate and disseminate information, yet the media also has the ability to transform and change the medium itself through digital and technological developments. The same goes for the image, which governs our perception of reality and the media landscape, yet is mediated by mass production and mass replication, and, lastly, mass media itself, which governs public communication but is mediated by how much the public audience is able to understand. As one can see, systems pertaining to law, writing, image, and mass media–to say the least–are all controlled by media institutions who then hold and garner power, control, and influence over the public landscape.
However, I found that the presentation for materiality made an extremely relevant case in regards to this power–they state that the hegemony of the digital age is now calling into question all pre-existing forms of media. Technology is rapidly improving and growing, yet the fact remains that it is still dependent on humans on public opinions. Thus, we circle back to what Duguay expressed with the polarization between the public and the media institutions in power. This struggle for authority in this modern era is a prevalent theme throughout all the chapter presentations we have seen thus far. As society becomes more intangible, more digitally connected, more publicly and quantifiably powerful, we see these long-standing institutions and systems challenged–perhaps, rightfully so. Therefore, as media-makers, it is imperative that we understand these social frameworks so that we understand how it affects our daily lives through current events, the evolving media landscape, and through the content we consume and produce.
first
Things to think about: Do you notice how the law controls and influences your daily life? Does it bother you or comfort you? Would you change the way the law mediates our society and everything we create, or would you have it stay the same?
I really like the way in which you guys called attention to some of the invisible (and often unquestionable) aspects of law that are not only ingrained in our systems of society, but in our belongings and behaviour, and especially when these media objects are cultivated for a mass audience. It is difficult to imagine a world where law is significantly different without conjuring images of 1984 (and the dematerialization of control systems) or Judge Dredd (with an ultimate authority figure), but I believe one of the key factors we can consider in the digital age is how the influence of authoritative iconography and language has evolved. Law has been constructed to create barriers between the public and professionals. In the future, perhaps the systems of law should aim to be more accessible and inclusive. While I understand the symbols of law are important for the maintenance of the justice system, I question if this is necessary? As law usually does, it boils down to an argument about the basic nature of the human (to be good or to be evil). If you believe the former, then the inaccessibility of the justice system and authority presence of the law figures is unnecessary and cruel, but if it is the latter? Perhaps the barrier of language and professionalism is effective at preventing some of those who wish to abuse the law from easy success.
Thanks for your response! Without the symbols of law that we see today, and all of the illusion around law for the public, do you think that the public would respond and adhere to the law without the mystery and control it holds over us? Would the image of law be less intimidating without all of the ‘rituals’ and specific settings? Can a court hearing be held outside a courtroom and still hold the same amount of power and authority? So to your point exactly, the language, professionalism and symbols of law are there to keep people from seeing that law is nothing more than a moral code agreed upon by the people.
To me, one of the most fascinating things you took from Goodrich is the theatre and almost religious aesthetics and formalities of what purports to be this objective and secular institution. Growing up in a society where this is the norm, it becomes shocking to step back and see how bizarre and idiosyncratic some of the formalities and conventions around legal practices are. I’m curious about the intersection between law, language and history. How did legal systems change in their content and application when societies shifted from oral to written culture? How do oral systems of law work, and are they more prone to change and evolution than our system of common law and legal precedent?
Hi Daniel,
To answer your questions, it’s good to think about the period in time when the law transitioned from oral to written. When this change happened, Law became something less fluid and more systematized. Oral legal systems change through performance and communal memory, making them flexible but fragile. Written and precedent-based systems change through formal interpretation and accumulation, making them slower to evolve but more durable across time. When you think about the similarities in law and theatre, it’s good to see how similarly structured and rehearsed they both are. Also good to note that they both always have an audience of some kind.
Reading your blog made me realize how deeply law shapes not only media but also our very identities. I was especially intrigued by the idea of juridification and how even our very existence is “proven” through documents like birth certificates and passports. It makes me wonder that if law constitutes who counts as a citizen, then isn’t free speech always already conditional, tied to that status? I also found the examples you brought up showed how law and media feed each other in cycles of authority and backlash. Do you guys think digital platforms amplify this tension?
Thanks for the response, Maryam! I think you make a really good point about the concept of free speech when you say that it is contingent upon one’s status as a citizen. There are many social, political, and historical reasons for which some people today may not have citizenship in the place they live. Are they not, then, entitled to free speech? I also think you’re correct is sensing the cyclical nature of “authority and backlash” between media and the law. Digital platforms may amplify this because of their form as two-way communication channels (more reactions and visibility), but I think free speech cases have long provoked publicity and public outcry, even in legacy/ mass media (news, TV, etc).
Really insightful blog post! I was most intrigued by the discussion of law and media, and how they have been framed as mutually mediating systems, especially when looking at the law as ‘theatrical.’ I am curious about your guys’ thoughts on how the media has televised and commodified the law and the courtroom when airing court cases to the public globally, and how broadcasting these trials may shift the ‘image of law’.
I liked how you extended beyond the concepts in your Law presentation to Image as well, reminding us of the power in imagery that can be controlled and normalized for public perception. I’m reminded of symbolic authority that you mentioned in your presentation with the use of robes, dramatic statues, courthouse architecture, etc. I never thought about the connotations these concepts/objects brought in a context like this. It really just adds more onto the idea of law as a theatre — as if it was a stage/set dressed in props with people wearing costumes and performing before an audience.
I’m really glad you brought up the contradictory and “theatrical” nature of law. Additionally, your connection to our other peers’ presentation on “Image” was really powerful considering how we have an image that represents the law (i.e. courtrooms, robes, etc.). In a way, I think this could also relate to our peers’ presentation on mass media. How has mass media contributed to our perception of law? We see many different ways in which law is represented in TV shows and movies. Just like Bridghet mentioned about the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show, we can see how this sentiment relates to the Mass Media group’s presentation on their comment on how mass media is used as “tools of influence” for the government (to enforce law). We can also see this in other examples where court cases have become sensational to us viewers. Take for example Amber Heard and Johnny Depp’s case or the Luigi Mangione case where both of them have led to become icons in our pop culture history. Such cases that are broadcasted so publicly, I would argue, is another way in which law attempts to mediate our behavior; by setting an example of the consequences, both social and legal.
(also sorry this is Christine I just realized my username was not updated until recently!)
Philippe Duguay’s interview was captivating because it connected theory with real-life examples. His description of how the law is “diluted” by the media made me think about how quickly the balance of power shifts when information becomes widely disseminated online. The example of Trump is also striking—it demonstrates how politicians use the media to undermine the authority of the law while simultaneously enhancing their own influence. This behaviour not only alters trust in the law but also transforms the media itself into a new “court,” using the media to influence people’s judgment and lead them to question or even deny the authority of the law.
I especially appreciated how your group connected Goodrich’s idea of the image of law to the performance and reproduction of authority in terms of ritual and symbols. It shows that law is not just about written rules—it’s also a very powerful medium that influences how we imagine justice itself. Celeste’s comment about Homo juridicus made me think about how law supports our daily life even before we are consciously aware of it. And Bridghet’s interview with Phillip Duguay was a great real-life insight—especially how social media is reconfiguring and even undermining the “image” of law. Overall, your presentation understood how law doesn’t just regulate media, but is mediated by it as well, which appears very relevant to today’s polarized information environment.