| With the era of We Media, studying the impact of We Media on Judiciary became a hottopic. In recent year, researches and papers about this topic are numerous. However, thesestudies are either ignored the differences between We Media and traditional media or just stayon the institutional level to describe the boundary between press freedom and judicialindependence. As a result, this article tried to abandon the value judgment, considering thesocial background of China, and then understanding the relationship between We Media,government regulation and citizen’s participation. This article mainly contains four parts.The first part is about the characteristics of We Media. According to the theory of PublicSphere from Habermas, the part one described the advantages and disadvantages of We media.Secondly, I discussed the role of We media in disclosure of social crisis. There is a newtrend for normal person to take part in judicial activity with a highly enthusiasm. Then there isthe case of mutually reinforcing relationship between the highly enthusiasm and emerging ofhot spots.The third part is about the new trend for normal person to take part in judicial activityusing We Media: Self-organization, fragmentation of public opinion from the media.The final part is about the impact of We Media on Judicial independence.In my opinion, the role of We Media in the social relationship is more and moreimportant. It’s observable that many social crises are disclosed by We Media. However, WeMedia are not neutral. When the judicial authorities had been interrupted by administrativeauthorities, they may play a role to withstand the administrative authorities. Sometimes,people in We Media may be influenced by each other and then reached an unreasonableconsensus. In both situations, We Media are un-neutral. Meanwhile, the differences betweenonline participation and offline participation, the different attitudes between legalists andnormal person, are the factors of when we evaluating the influence of We Media. As a result,without considering the social background of China, without the understanding of therelationship between We Media, government regulation and citizen’s participation, there is notreasonable to simply propose that We Media are good for judiciary. |
