The purpose of this text is to answer the question of whether and to what extent traditional court symbols and rituals remain (and should remain) present at remote hearings. Some legal symbols have archetypal meaning. Others are born with their era, judged in a particular context. There are many of them in traditional courtrooms. Which remain on computer screen? The author investigates whether and to what extent visual symbols (e.g. elements of architecture, furnishings) are present at remote hearings. Considering courts and online courts (or ‘e-courts’) as heterotopias (in Michel Foucault’s sense), she looks deeper into and explores their properties.

The purpose of the article is to study the sources and analyse the effects of one way of manipulating information on law in the media, i.e. the phenomenon of bullshitting’ (saying nonsense, sharing pseudo-information) on law and its work. A linguistic statement that involves ‘bullshitting’ is an eristic technique in written or oral communication, expressed by the sender in a specific environment with the purpose of convincing the addressee (audience) that things are so and so and making an impression of being professional and masking the fact that the sender does not care what the truth is. The ‘bullshitter’ does not make attempts to make their input into the conversation factual; they say anything, without any conviction of the truth; they say what they do not have sufficient grounds to claim. This phenomenon is an important factor that makes building the prestige of law (also in Poland) more difficult. Without taking care of the organisation of professional communication about law from professionals to citizens, manipulating information on law will cause permanent damage to legal awareness. The author compares this eristic technique with statements with include lies, provides examples of ‘bullshitting’ on law by politicians and journalists, and deals with the circumstances and effects of the phenomenon.