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.

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.

There are many theoretical and legal issues related to the operation of private military companies (PMCs) and their presence (location of their registered offices) in democratic states under the rule of law that remain unsolved in legal doctrine and practice. There are no clear rules at an international level that define the status of these agencies and the way in which they carry out their duties. There is also the problem of distinguishing between contractors and mercenaries. PMCs, like private security companies (PSCs), are used by states in exchange for large government contracts in so-called „unwanted wars”, where it is cheaper to conduct operations without parliamentary oversight, media publicity, or social objections to sending military contingents abroad. Sometimes it is a question of providing discrete military aid to „friend countries”. PMCs are politically safer in such a situation. Not only states but also non-governmental organizations, private companies,
rebel groups and declining dictators hire these private armies. The problem requires urgent multifaceted reflection leading to changes in legal doctrine and legislative action, both at the international level and in individual countries.