21st September 2022
I have been asked to give a lecture by the University of Birmingham, where I went to law school (and where I am now an honorary lecturer).
The lecture will be on law, blogging, and social media.
(You din’t think they would let me near substantive law?)
I hope that the lecture can be released as a podcast and as a pdf.
I am putting some thoughts together – but my knowledge is limited.
I know about my own blogging and use of social media, and about that of some of my peers.
But my perspective is that of a provider of stuff, rather than as a consumer of stuff.
And so I was wondering what the readers of this blog thought about legal blogging and legal commentary on social media.
In particular, I should be grateful for responses to the following queries about the legal blogging and legal commentary on social media of others (and please not mine – please don’t use my stuff as examples):
Does legal blogging and legal commentary on social media provide any information or insight to you that you would not otherwise have access to?
Are there particular examples of posts or threads or videos or podcast episodes which you regard as especially helpful?
Does legal blogging and legal commentary on social media really help the public understanding of law?
And if so, how?
Do you use (and do you prefer) other sources of legal information – such as journals, the trade press, and the mainstream media?
And given law had managed quite well for thousands of years before the World Wide Web and social media/blogging/podcast platforms, is legal blogging and legal commentary on social media just a waste of time?
What, if anything, does it do which is new and different from other forms of media?
Any other thoughts welcome, especially if you have links to examples.
Many thanks.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
The comments policy is here.
I ‘m a non lawyer but an ex civil servant who is used to looking at legislation. During Covid the legislation became in comprehensible because of all the amendments. I found Adam Wagner invaluable for understanding what I could and could not do at a time when the Government were confusing guidance with the law.
Re Legal social media. I read Adam Wagner’s closely. His explanations of the Covid Regulations (inconsistencies, contradictions, consequences etc) were indispensable to me as a member of the public and also helped me decide I could no longer attempt to adjudicate on such matters as a magistrate. I believe there is a need and a demand for legal blogging and social media posts because our current lawmakers are unable to write laws which make any legal sense. Someone has to point this out to the wider public.
Strongly agree. Adam’s analysis was vital just as a member of the public trying to fathom it all out. He made clear what was or could be opaque.
One particular blog I’ve been enjoying (although admittedly it covers US law) is Legal Eagle
https://youtube.com/c/LegalEagle
As well as the Tik-tock type stuff (to avoid but needs to be there for the channel to survive) there is clear objective coverage of areas of law relevant to US current affairs. Has some great coverage of the ongoing mar-a-lago saga. As well as exactly what went on in the courtrooms where Trump tried to challenge election outcomes etc.
I think the benefit in this case is that there is a free, open, yet authoritative source available to check any narrative that politicians may be trying to spin against the public. The author quotes, word for word, the relevant regulations and laws and gives sources for facts all presented in a calm and accessible way.
Highly recommended.
Some thought, take them or leave them:
1. Law is of upmost importance to the proper functioning of our society.
2. Law is technical, complex, arcane, dull, subject to ongoing revision, specialised etc….
3. We are living in an era where democratic and legal institutions are not always respected by politicians or large swathes of the public they purport to represent.
4. Traditional media is often biased toward one political narrative over another; and/or beholden to a commercial model which demands content that is designed to grab the fleeting attention of consumers.
5. If politicians attempt to act against the spirit (or even letter) if the rule of law, this will not always be challenged by traditional media, as it may not suit their preferred narrative and/or be able to be presented in a way which grabs the attention of consumers.
6. Those who are interested in defending this vital part of our society and holding those in power accountable need authoritative, relatively apolitical sources to be a sort of “supporting base” from which to act.
7. Executive and judiciary are meant to be separated in our democracy. However, politics is fast moving, undisciplined, loose, hasty. Law is careful, slow, and methodical. The danger is that in todays fast moving narrative-driven environment, politicians are able present their gloss of what the law is in an almost hand waving way to little challenge. Good quality legal blogging is needed to ensure that those of us who are fast moving enough can catch the politicians hand when they are waving and say “well, hang on there….”
What he said⬆️⬆️
I am retired. Having spent 40 years in the law in various different roles I continue to be interested in what is happening in the worlds I used to be in. Blogs give me informed tasters without the academic or practitioners detail. If I get more interested I can follow up on the internet.
I read Popehat Twitter: not just informative about the American legal system and how it relates to the major stories of the day, but also both thoughtful and funny.
The blog of the barrister Gordon Exall is of huge value for keeping up to date with legal procedure, but it also covers related matters, such as how to deal with stress as a working lawyer, or strategies for preparing to go on holiday, guidance for young advocates, or resources about dealing with grief or avoiding negligence claims.
He is prolific, although it is often quotes from cases rather than detailed commentary or critique. He will pull together relevant comments from other lawyers on Twitter too.
I receive each blog post by email and then archive them by topic for future reference, but his website is fully searchable. It is difficult to imagine this being done as effectively any other way. On paper periodically simply would not work.
Examples:-
https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2022/04/25/fish-files-and-how-to-fillet-them-before-they-bite-and-your-problems-become-cast-in-stone/
https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2022/07/11/nine-years-on-viii-2021-advice-for-lawyers-going-on-holiday/
https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2019/09/24/proving-things-162-when-the-government-doesnt-have-the-commons-touch/
https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2022/04/06/the-court-will-grant-a-declaration-that-an-ed-sheeran-song-did-not-breach-copywright-oh-why-shouldnt-it/
An outstanding and unparalleled resource IMHO.
I am an HR generalist. That means that I am not legally qualified but I need to understand the legal framework businesses operate within and keep up with relevant changes in the law. I rely on bulletins sent out by law firms for speedy information on significant case law and for advice for HR practitioners on upcoming changes to statute.
Blogs serve a different function; I read them for entertainment and interest. Bulletins from law firms are written to give you a sufficiently thorough and inclusive understanding to do your job (and to know when to call in a lawyer). Blogs pick up on interesting details. They can be enlightening as well as entertaining but I don’t think that is their primary purpose. Bloggers shine a light into dark corners, sometimes to find legal curios but sometimes to light up dark corners when people lurk to avoid notice. Bloggers can help clarify matters when public opinion runs off after a misconception – people get some funny ideas about the law – but I don’t think any one blogger in this field has reached the stature of e..g. Martin Lewis, who has had the ear of some very senior politicians.
The thing which is new IMO is that social media gives you the appearance of a personal relationship with a blogger. I don’t do it often for fear of the blogger thinking they have picked up a stalker, but there is an extra layer of enjoyment when you can address a comment directly to an author and, sometimes, get a reply.
Finally, part of the enjoyment of reading legal blogs is the use of language. When Clinton said “it depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is” and millions of people assumed he was being deliberately dense or difficult, he was giving a lawyer’s answer. Most of the lawyers I have read or worked with have developed a pithy, well-turned style. Legal bulletins are written for clarity but blogs seem to give greater scope for expression of personality.
So does blogging offer something new and different? I’d say so – see above.
Is blogging a waste of time? If your readers don’t think they are wasting their time by reading your blogs, if they come away amused and enlightened, then you aren’t wasting your time by blogging.
Please keep going! Good luck with your talk.
I prefer long-form articles (and specifically the written word not podcasts or videos) rather than tweets and subscribe to you and to Joshua Rosenberg. I find both informative, although usually in rather different ways.
I also follow law.stackexchange.com, and used to follow uk.legal.moderated back in the day.
I think educating the general public about how the law works is important. It should be part of a general education – but it usually isn’t.
The fact that I (continue to) subscribe to this blog by email is proof that I find it useful (though follow you on twitter too!). In several domains, I follow a few people who are generally acknowledged to know their stuff and therefore I can rely pretty well on what they say. I prefer this to print/tv/other (though podcast discussions are my favourite way of understanding issues).
The use of legal blogging/social media has been a step forward in gaining insight that I would previously have gained (or not !) via journalistic interpretation of events.
I would never have considered seeking out journals etc and probably wouldn’t now other than when directed to specific papers via social media
I believe legal insight via social media is also more important now than ever as a reliable counterbalance to the rising tide of poor quality/ deliberately inaccurate sources on SM.
The social media interaction also directs to deeper content.
Your own twitter feed is a perfect example of all the above points but to spare your blushes let’s refer to secret barrister : from their twitter feed I gained insight into deeply misreported cases such as PC Harper and the subsequent appeal by the AG.
It not only highlighted the key legal issues in a simple way it also linked to the judge’s comments (in itself an education in legal understanding)
From this SM involvement it prompted me to read their books and further educate myself.
Such services are not “nice to haves” they are essential – having “go to” sources that you can rely on in any area in these days is important and none more so than in law.
Hope that helps and thanks for the great service you provide.
Hope that helps
The blog written by the Good Law Project is impressive and helpful, I find. It discusses issues clearly (often passionately) and, most valuable of all, gives online access to original court documents. The blog is limited to considering GLP’s projected or current applications for judicial review, but that’s plenty to be getting on with – in addition to your own! My only other sources of legal comment are in the London Review of Books and the New York Review of Books
As a non-lawyer, legal blogs are my main source of information about legal issues in the news. The only blogs I follow are yours and Joshua Rozenberg’s. That’s enough!
I came to these blogs initially through Brexit-related issues, including prorogation. They have given me helpful insights on constitutional law, Covid regulations and partygate, and problems in the criminal justice system. (Oxford comma intended.)
Yes, it has helped my understanding of the law. I wouldn’t dream of buying a law journal, although I have clicked through from blog posts to read longer articles in the Law Gazette and others. Mainstream media doesn’t seem to have many in-depth articles or broadcast stories on the law. They focus on court reporting of specific cases and don’t have time, space or possibly the expertise to analyse the legal context of other stories – that’s where the blogs are most helpful.
The only other way to find out about legal issues would be to ask lawyers I know, which would be annoying to them. So thank goodness for legal blogs!
Thank you Louise for documenting my thoughts on legal blogging without me saying a word. I cannot add to your comments other than to say that I suspect there are many of us who found David during the Bexit debacle and stayed for the succinct ongoing commentary that I would miss if unavailable.
Anything that makes the law more accessible is to be encouraged. I have no legal background but am an engaged citizen and voter. Your blog is fantastic, you always get the length of them about right but as a fan of Twitter, I believe well-written Twitter threads are of equal value. As someone who writes threads in my area of expertise, they force me to make every word count and to do it very logically. You are a natural at this but Twitter threads chunk up explanations or ideas I to separate digestible pieces each of which can be replied to/engaged with.
The first legal blogger I came across was Sir Henry Brooke. I have no connection to the legal profession apart from turning up for jury service but he was so very good and I still miss his wisdom. Please mention him in any way you see fit.
Some of the legal twittering by The Secret Barrister has been useful to me in contextualising the actual application of law. It sounds trivial, but their occasional movie law live tweets are a great practical application that really aid the understanding of how law is used in real cases. In particular what it does is arm me against simplistic reporting.
As a complete legal novice, I find your blog fascinating and informative but more importantly extremely accessible. I wouldn’t know how else to learn about important legal challenges against this totally opaque government .
I also enjoy Adam Wagner and Joshua Rosenberg and of course the Secret Barrister!!
In my opinion there is value in legal blogging and commentary on social media, in much the same way as in relation to scientific and other technical matters. There is a great deal of misinformation online and, once the bona fides and authority of the author has been ascertained, the legal commentator can act as a corrective force. I believe it does improve the public understanding of the law.
Apart from matters constitutional(!), I have greatly appreciated contributions by those who specialise in international trade and taxation.
I appreciate the immediacy and relevance of social media posts and they tend to be my first port of call for news and commentary.
Twitter and Substack are how thinkers share ideas today.
Socrates and Plato sat around and talked.
Aristotle and Aquinas wrote for posterity.
Erasmus and More corresponded, with each other, and more broadly.
These thinkers had naturally limited audiences, and therefore limited scope for receiving the feedback and opposing or tangential viewpoints that can influence the thought process.
In the 19th and 20th century, the academic journal became the medium for the exchange of ideas. (In the specific area of law, there are also written judgments from precedent cases. But even law has had plenty of commentary in academic journals).
The academic journal still has its place, but it’s a long slow grind to translate new information to thought, to reduce thought to written work, to share that written work, to get a reaction to that written work, and to obtain the reaction of others to one’s own thought. The process could literally take decades.
In the information age, the process does not have to take decades. It happens in minutes.
Twitter and Substack are not distractions from the thought process; they are at its essence.
There is a lot of noise, particularly on Twitter, of trolls and naysayers. It’s actually very easy to ignore all this, although I accept it can be distracting. To suggest that that this noise negates the benefits of the platforms would be absurd.
Thanks David, your thoughts on Twitter and on this web site are always considered, measured and thought provoking. I look forward to viewing your lecture on line!
So many people have so many preconceptions of what the law is and how it applies to specific circumstances, me included.
It’s only by reading blogs such as this that one learns so much not just about the law itself but how it is applied and under what circumstances in specific events.
Add to this the instructions of how our constitution such that it is operates then for me I find these blogs fascinating.
What has changed during my career is the decline in specialist legal reporting and commentary in the mainstream media. But I would say that, wouldn’t I?
I am a passable contract lawyer.
During my law degree, Land Law was my weakest subject (quite some achievement, had you seen some of my tort work) but, like all areas of law, it comes alive when applied to the real world and today threw up a good example related to your question.
This turned up in my timeline, retweeted by someone I follow:
https://twitter.com/modernlandlaw/status/1572515149688492033
I would never have noticed it without Twitter (and I am not even a great fan of the site) and wouldn’t have gone and researched Dutton without it. I’m still not sure I agree with the ratio of Dutton (which may be a consequence of my inability to grasp land law) but I am glad of a bit of extra knowledge and don’t think that I would have found it through any other medium.
Trivial, perhaps, but all these snippets from areas of the law outside our own expertise add up and, I think, make us all rather more rounded than we might previously have been.
Hope it helps.
As a non-lawyer involved in business planning I receive steady streams of detail from legal firms identifying areas which should be of concern (obviously with the purpose of selling services). Blogs are of value in making one think outside the box (the black swan events). Wagner was great for Covid and its complexity, Rosenberg, Secret Barrister, Legal Eagle are also useful
Strongly agree also with those mentioning The Secret Barrister. They have highlighted well just how broken the legal system is very clearly and starkly. (They also provide the occasional glorious live tweet along to a film or comment on popular songs. Blue’s “All Rise” springs unbidden.)
Over the years I’ve found a variety of sources that have helped me understand – and derive pleasure from understanding – the law.
As a technologist with professional interest in Open Source software and the US Patent scene, I found Groklaw [now shuttered, sadly] to be probably the best on line resource in which a small handful of cases were followed in forensic detail, with every Pacer filing explored and discussed. Pamela Jones, the principle author, managed to imbue the site with so much of her love for the law that it was infectious. For an example of an award-winning approach to an in-depth look at complex legal issues, there’s no place better.
In terms of slightly shorter, pithier articles, then I’ve derived much enjoyment and education from reading Lawfare; again, this is a US-based site, but the approach and presentation might be interesting. There’s also Popehat, which shuttered around 2020, but again has a lot of interesting material.
In some sense I suspect that the presentation formats available are useful in different ways for different purposes: Twitter is no use for a detailed analysis of a ruling in a complex case, any more than WordPress is suitable for a quick pointer to a new filing or pithy comment on a breaking legal story.
Using the right tool for the job is the mark of a professional in any field of endeavor, including, I suspect, legal blogging…
When it comes to more transactional engagements with the legal profession [not in the financial sense, in the brief sense], then I used to enjoy Twitter, at least for as long as they permitted me to browse anonymously without using code to block my browsing unless I registered and signed in… There, I very much enjoyed reviewing: Joyce Vance, Barbara McQuade, Chuck Rosenberg, the truly excellent George Conway, Maya Wiley, Mimi Rocah (now Westchester DA), Neal Katyal, all of whom gave me useful insight into topics of US law that had a bearing on my professional life.
Completely off the beaten track, but perhaps worth considering because of the way that it crowd-sources knowledge is Bellingcat, an investigative journalism site that touches on lots of different materials but is generally well-written. To focus your exploration put “legal” in to the site’s search box and try your luck…
For what little it’s worth, the most interesting/important element that this site shares with, say, Groklaw, is that both are excellent at explaining the “meaning behind the meaning”, the subtle and sometimes hidden vernacular of the legal language and the way that legal arguments are conceived, shaped and presented in filings or in the actual statute itself.
It is said that the true mastery of a language is achieved when one can think in that language as well as speak in it. I am under no illusions that I will ever be able to think about the law as a lawyer would, but these resources have helped me to think about legal issues in a more helpful, revealing way.
I could rattle on about why I’m interested in Twitter v. Musk, but that’s rather irrelevant. The relevant point is that there is an absolutely great commentator, The Chancery Daily (@chancery_daily), on Twitter. (There’s also a related Substack blog.) She knows the really obscure corners of Delaware corporate law and procedure in the Court of Chancery.* She then explains developments in the case without putting her readers to sleep. Her running commentary as the attorneys are presenting oral argument before the Chancellor on pretrial motions is sharp and smart. For the “law nerds” (as she calls them), she provides a detailed analysis in the context of both Delaware case law and the litigation. Having watched the Chancellor (and Vice Chancellors) in court for years as a writer for a daily newsletter, she perceptively comments on the Chancellor’s approach in the case and the litigation tactics employed by the attorneys. Better yet, her replies to questions from people who are not attorneys are jargon-free and in plain language.
I’ve been following her for 5 weeks, and the extent of her knowledge is breathtaking. I feel as if I’ve learned more corporate law in a month than I learned in law school. A random assortment of lawyers and law professors have coalesced around her Twitter feed, and they provide answers and perspectives that supplement hers. The tone of discussion is pretty civilized, and the atmosphere is welcoming. If you wanted a model of what legal commentary on Twitter can be, you’d be hard-pressed to find a better example.
______
*Delaware retains the separation of equity and law, and the Court of Chancery possesses, under the state constitution, the general equity powers of the Court of Chancery in Great Britain as they existed at the time of the Declaration of Independence in 17766.
I have only a lay interest in the law and don’t follow any legal blogs except yours. This though is very informative and entertaining indeed, especially in “interesting” times when norms of behaviour and evidence are widely challenged or ignored.
For me, the main value is in understanding what is and isn’t legally important (to the society in which I live, as a migrant), what consequences and remedies might be available to the participants and hence what is worth worrying about and following and what isn’t.
In pre-internet times I would mainly have found this sort of information in occasional articles in the Sunday papers. Now I get it in daily instalments, which is better. I would still occasionally turn to Twitter for breaking news or an online newspaper or even Wikipedia for more depth on something.
I mainly follow you personally but I wouldn’t object to occasional guest posts or breaks for holidays etc.
Hope that helps.
Given I read your work every day, it seems fair I contribute in return! Trying to keep to your points:
a) Yes, absolutely. The law is vast and complex and public education on same is generally poor. So, I read blogs etc. to get the background needed to assess if a given course of legal action is reasonable, justifiable etc. I need a modest background in the law but have neither the time, nor resources, to delve into it. So, legal commentary of all sorts gives me an indication of key areas I should take into account and it’s often written in a style that makes reading a pleasure (unlike too many law reports and Acts that, although accurate, are not thrilling reading).
b) I tend to take whichever posts cover a topic so I have few specific favourites. I like the Secret Barrister posts as an antidote to knee-jerk responses (ditto their books). Looking at their threads often gives me access to other useful UK legal thought. I often follow the Environmental Defenders Office which gives me my local (Australian) perspective on issues that, as an environmental scientist, are important to me. As with UK material, I’ll find a thread and follow the arguments developed there rather than only look at the work of one person.
c) Way back, I had to teach UK Acts and international regulations and got reasonably good at that. Outside that area, my knowledge drops off so by reading the thoughts of those who actually do the work, I gain a crash course in law and how it functions. To me, it’s an indispensable part of keeping up to date.
d) Apart from those mentioned, I don’t really have a specific go-to source. I recognize some key names that often comment and find those whose words are regarded by others as decent commentary and then keep digging in that direction! Not so much indiscriminate as catholic.
e) Absolutely not a waste. An antidote to making snap judgements, a source of useful case studies to follow up and something that needs to be done more widely as all forms of public life (not just the law) seem so much less well known than in the past. I see it as part of my ongoing general education.
“Given I read your work every day, it seems fair I contribute in return!”
This is a wonderful expression of the ethos that drives the development of information resources as common goods. Thank you – and DAG – for sharing :)
Certainly well researched and thoughtful analysis and reporting is valuable to non-lawyers who have an interest in the subject. It is necessary though to ferret out political biases in an analysis. Usually available knowledge of the author’s opinions and leanings will suffice here.
Two American blogs I enjoy are lawfare.com (allied with the Brookings Institute) and SCOTUSblog.
Lawfare is enjoyable for wide ranging articles on legal issues related to U.S domestic and foreign policy. SCOTUS
blog is helpful for analysis and “translation” to non-lawyers about U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Of course, this is of current importance because the court has an extremely conservative bent and has no reservations about ignoring facts or established legal precedent.
I enjoy DAG more for the exposition of legal and political legerdemain in British politics. Quoting a superior I worked for many years ago: “People will grab power any way they can get it”. Downing Street and Parliament are no exception.
For my personal education, I concur with the above comments on the value of blogs and tweets by you, Adam Wagner, Joshua Rozenberg and Secret Barrister – thank you to all of you.
I am a town planner and for my professional education, the following are valuable:
Town Legal’s updates on Planning Court judgments, sent as an email newsletter and archived here:
https://www.townlegal.com/library/planning-court-judgment-commentaries-archive/
Simon Ricketts’ (barrister at Town Legal) commentary on planning matters:
https://simonicity.com/
Alas, not updated since his retirement, Martin Goodall, a barrister specialising in planning law:
http://planninglawblog.blogspot.com/?m=1
They all greatly help understanding of new legislation and the impact on interpretation of existing law arising from case law. They are invaluable for the likes of me who have to work with that law every day.
Over the past few years I have found myself being drawn into the legal social media world, starting, I think, with the late Bystander’s Magistrate’s blog. I find that the various social media contributors have greatly increased my understanding of the law and how it is applied in practice. For many people the only sources of information about legal matters are from the press which often condense extremely complex arguments and processes into often lurid headlines and “light” reporting which fails to explain the reasoning behind verdicts and sentencing.
Practical examples which come to mind are SBs explanations of how sentencing guidelines are applied (plus, of course, the comprehensive articles and books about the state of play in the courts ) and Joshua Rozenberg’s discussion of a couple of the very tragic child medical cases. Brexit has also brought a need to explain complex legal processes and agreements both from a constitutional perspective and in terms of interpreting the impacts on everyday business.
Very important: the necessity of being simultaneously comprehensible, concise and relevant enables not only a deeper understanding but often a flipping of viewpoint to a novel and stimulating new position. And doing it rapidly supercharges the relevance. No specific examples but this is generally true of your posts.
Quite a few blogs offer information / insight into topics that are, for many of us non-lawyers, obscure. Some blogs are specialised (like Brexit and Beyond) and some are more general such as Obiter J’s Law and Lawyers.
Blogs can help understanding and some bloggers obviously do their research and provide additional links to material they have come across. That’s helpful and, to be honest, saves readers a lot of time.
Good example of that was Obiter J’s coverage of defamation at the time of the Vardy / Rooney case – https://obiterj.blogspot.com/2022/08/defamation-cases-and-access-to-justice.html
I also liked how Obiter kept pointing out how politicians are wrecking human rights and the constitution. I wonder whether anyone was listening?
Lot of sources of legal information are now behind paywalls and are just too expensive for most of us. Blogs go some way to counter this.
Another angle is that platforms like Twitter have a lot of ill-informed views and those can be challenged by bloggers who know the real situation.
See this morning that Obiter J has just called it a day on blogging. I think that’s a pity.
Hope this helps.
Personal comment only, not a serious one.
Your blog and the efforts of the Good Law Project have identified details and issues that would have passed my by reading the FT, Observer, and listening to the BBC.
I appreciate the clarity, and brevity of the posts, and note that Referenda is still regularly used by Sarah Montague on the World at one.
I include the obligatory Oxford comma as, and when, it might, or might not apply .
I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t spend a lot of time on social media, but here are some thoughts:
1. In line with an earlier comment made by an another reader, I find the Legal Eagle stream on YouTube to be a good analysis of US law. Some of the stream may seem frivolous – such as analysing how accurately the law is portrayed in TV shows such as The Simpsons – but if this helps draw people into thinking about how the law works in real life then perhaps that’s a good thing.
2. The mainstream media seems to be moving towards ever shorter articles and TV slots for news items, so blogs and YouTube analysis of laws seems to be a better (only?) way of getting deeper analysis today. For example, I think the Secret Barrister did some interesting posts a few years back looking into sentencing guidelines and comparing these to the “outrage” which appeared in some of the press.
3. If I’m looking for into a legal aspect for professional purposes however then I’m going to go to source – the relevant Acts and Statutory Instruments – and then consult trade journals and legal analysis put out by relevant lawyers. I would want to corroborate anything I find online before acting on it.
4. Having had to work with the law I know how difficult it can be to interpret – keeping track of all the relevant amendments to Acts and SIs, factoring in case law etc – so blogging can provide a useful overview.
5. There is a downside. I’m sure there’s a lot of “bad law” on the internet and social media. Remember those people who thought Magna Carta could exempt them from lockdown – how was that idea spread? Can anything be done to counter this? What are the risks of people using Google for legal advice rather than a lawyer?
As a non lawyer but married to a lawyer I find some legal blogging very useful as I wouldn’t go to a legal journal or textbook as I wouldn’t know where to start. So a good blog makes the law more accessible so for this reason, it helps the public understanding of law and so therefore never a waste of time. However, the blog and mainstream media need to be accurate and as a layman sometimes I don’t know if it is. My lawyer husband says quite a few articles he reads are inaccurate. More than that, they can mis-categorise legal decisions eg. the Brexit litigation.
People who write code use stack exchange to share knowledge. I note that there is now a ‘law’ based version; https://law.stackexchange.com/
It isn’t as mature as its ancestor, and like its ancestor, it’s not going to be as helpful as professional advice would be. It’s what it’s designed to be that matters.
Community cultivated resources of this sort are qualitatively different from information resources that were available pre-internet in several ways: Usefulness improves with use rapidly; they are a common good by design; they are capable of providing feedback with respect to the weight of opinion in a community, helping non experts sort genuine controversy from the chaff of nonsense. Opinions presented in publicly accessible blogs written by learned and respected experts are often referenced in posts on these sorts of sites, adding significantly to the quality of the resource.
Much needed free legal advice for the public is being withheld as a matter of policy. Information technology is the modern pitchfork.
I can only add that the growing role of crowd funding depends on social media, and that without crowd funding, given the state of the Legal Aid scheme, we really would be in a dark place indeed.
Separating a different point into a different comment:
Technology development responds to hegemony in a way that moderates power. Our politicians appear way behind the curve in respect of this intersection.
That is a dangerous situation in and of itself.
There is more than one body of law, and some – IMO – unjust laws have been rendered unenforceable by means of decentralising media technology.
https://blog.ipfs.tech/24-uncensorable-wikipedia/
We waste a ton of money in the UK insisting that ISP’s don’t direct users to government identified content: One is not legally or practically required to cooperate with this – just ask your kids how to circumnavigate this pointless finger-wagging wall. It isn’t really there to protect them, but rather the music and film companies that would otherwise be making proxy demands on the contents of your wallet via your children.
Bleeding edge technology (e.g. IPFS) manifests networks that are hosted ephemerally on privately owned computers making the content they transport impossible in practice to censor. Information is deliberately put beyond the control of any actor. Networks like this form the basis of so called ‘Web3’ applications that seek to return to the commons much of the fat accumulating on the board members and owners of understandably and – mainly – legally hegemonic technology companies.
Benign public education about the potential devastating legal consequences of using free and easily available technology is becoming an ethical imperative. The public increasingly rely on information made freely available to stay up to speed and on the right side of the law in a rapidly changing world. Sadly there is a disincentive for either government or business to educate the commons.
If you do, they can become ungovernable and disrespectful of intellectual property rights.
The public want a fireproof Alexandria a lot more than the powers that be want them to have it. Our strange possible futures desperately needs public debate by experts in the field of law.
It took me a while to remember it but, as a techie, my first introduction to legal blogging was groklaw.net
At the time, SCO v. IBM was a thing and Groklaw was a real help in understanding how wide or limited the impact could be on my own industry. The stakes were perhaps even higher than we realised at the time; the courts may have been deciding whether Linux would remain free, and cloud computing today uses Linux as its primary building block.
It’s only occurred to me now how I can trace a line from that website to my current appreciation of legal blogging and social media, and the value of seeing a specialist break down the subtleties in what can feel like a very intimidating area.
a) Yes, legal blogging and commentary on social media provides information and an insight into legal and constitutional matters that I would otherwise struggle to understand and appreciate in as much depth – the commentators on Twitter help to explain the detail and give context to current/newsworthy events.
b) From memory, your FT explainers on YouTube about the Northern Ireland protocol, Brexit, and prosecuting war crimes have been particularly informative.
c) I don’t know about the public understanding of law – I can only speak for myself and how commentators/bloggers such as you, Adam Wagner, Secret Barrister, Joshua Rosenberg, and Matthew Scott have provided much-needed information on topical legal stories. This is a bit different, but Jo Maugham and the Good Law Project have been very influential on Boris Johnson’s illegal prorogation of Parliament, the transparency of PPE and test and trace contract awards, and ensuring the government sticks to its climate change commitments.
d) I don’t use legal journals and prefer the blogs and Twitter threads to most news coverage. There have been occasions where a lawyer, such as Adam Wagner with the ‘partygate’ breaches of Covid-19 regulations and the ‘currygate’ investigation, has provided a good analysis of how the law applied to each situation. Your appearances on James O’Brien’s radio show talking about Brexit and the prorogation of Parliament have been informative and enjoyable.
e) Legal blogging and analysis on the Internet, whether a daily blog, a reaction to a specific case, or a Twitter thread, has been a useful accompaniment to the coverage of legal, political, and constitutional matters in the news and in newspapers.
I also find the Legal Eagle’s YouTube videos on US law (https://www.youtube.com/c/LegalEagle/videos) to be very informative and accessible, breaking down the trials and tribulations of Donald Trump and Alex Jones, and evaluating the accuracy of courtroom scenes in films and TV shows.
I know that a politician is lying to me when its mouth is open.
However, only through relatively recent reading of legal blogs have I learned about the occasions when the lies are impossible to implement and, as is the case with the NI Protocol, this gives me comfort when the general ordure which passes for government usually leaves me furious.
I find commentary from blogs like your own immensely interesting and ACCESSIBLE (the important point). Law isn’t something (fortunately I guess) that I have had to have a close relationship with at all through my life.
Thank you for making some of the procedures and decisions much more accessible. In my >50 year lifetime this level of explanation was never available before the advent of social media; to me at least.
Think this has already been stated above – but it seems that, nowadays, if you want to know ‘stuff’ about what’s going on, you have to rely on altruistic intellectuals commenting on the fringe, as you can no longer rely upon the authenticity, honesty and bona fides of the the more traditional sources of ‘information’
A good example is Chris Grey’s excellent Brexit Blog
I’m an (ex) engineer, interested in society.
My first, non-practical, engagement with The Law was via The Secret Barrister’s lucid and frightening commentary (Twitter and then book). Somehow I then found your Twitter commentary and later Joshua Rosenberg’s.
SB has been quieter online recently, JR posts less than you do, so I learn most from you, DAG.
Not to flatter, but I really value your forensic and clear assessment of, particularly, constitutional and governmental topics (here and, occasionally in the US).
Individuals, mostly, can affect these matter minimally, but ought to be more aware and therefore more equipped to influence, via the vote, the way in which our society is managed.
Apart from pure interest, that is the value of your and other legal commentaries.
But:
No ‘buts’!
Thank you!
Bravo for getting a
But
into your reply! I thought about it but couldn’t think of a way to do it. Yours is most elegant.
Thanks. Didn’t manage ‘Brace, Brace’, sadly.
Well.
Your writing style is as important to me, as a non-lawyer, as the technical content. Indeed, because of the style in which you write, I think I understand more about the technical content, and appreciate its implications.
So, I suppose, it’s not just what you write, but the way in which you have written it.
And one word, written twice can carry as much meaning in terms of what the (emotional) outcomes of the technical narrative could mean, as a lengthy prose.
All of this means, that when an ‘event’ occurs, such as today’s political outpourings from Kwasi Kwarteng, I go to your Blog to see what you have written, if anything, in case I need to
Brace. Brace.
Sorry.
I’d like to ‘like’ that.
But
‘Like’ doesn’t seem to work,
I like clarity, logic, and honest broking in an up-to-date, immediately accessible form, hence following your blog. Also I feel you don’t have an axe to grind. I can’t be sure of obtaining the same from mainstream media. I also follow the Secret Barrister and the Good Law Project (not sure in what ways you don’t agree with Jo Maugham).
This is an example of an AI generated comment linked back to a law firm site. I have removed the source, but I publish it for general interest:
The blog article on “What is the point of legal blogging and legal commentary on social media?” by David Allen Green is a compelling exploration that aligns with my experiences in the legal field. The author eloquently delves into the significance of legal blogging and commentary in the digital age, emphasizing the potential for accessible and informative discussions on complex legal matters. Having engaged with legal professionals and content creators, I appreciate the article’s insights into the democratizing effect of legal commentary in breaking down complex issues for a wider audience. The clear articulation of the role of legal bloggers in promoting understanding and accountability resonates with my observations, reinforcing the idea that legal discourse in digital spaces serves a valuable function in fostering transparency and public engagement with the law.
I hope the “writer” doesn’t attempt a summing up of Henry James!