Parchment,
Paper, Pixels:
Law
and the Technologies of Communication
by
Peter Tiersma
University
of Chicago Press
Introduction
1
Written
texts are ubiquitous in our legal system. Lawyers and judges
create
such texts just about every day, and when they aren't drafting
them,
they are often struggling to interpret and apply them. Law is
surely
one of the most literate of all professions. Legal texts are also
extremely
important to the rest of society. Documents like statutes,
judicial
opinions, deeds, wills, and contracts literally govern much
of
our lives.
Currently,
the nature of such texts is undergoing tremendous
changes.
Many of these changes result from developments in the
technologies
of storing and communicating information. For thousands
of
years, the primary technology for storing and communicating
legal
information has been writing. During the past millennium
or
two, writing has generally consisted of using ink to place
marks
on paper or parchment. The process could be done by hand
or
by a mechanical device like a printing press.
Today
many people do most of their writing by typing on a computer
keyboard.
The texts that they produce may reside only on
a
hard disk or other electronic storage medium. What appears on
the
screen is not really letters of the alphabet but rather tiny dots,
called
pixels, which create the impression of writing but which can
also
represent images. Not only are legal texts stored on computers,
but
the Internet has made it increasingly possible to communicate those
texts
electronically.
Because
law is such a textual enterprise, one would expect that the
technologies
of storing and communicating legal texts would have been
the
topic of much discussion by the profession. Lawyers do indeed concern
themselves
with these issues, but they almost always do so within the
context
of a specific area of the law, such as requirements that contracts
or
wills be in writing. Surprisingly, even legal academics have paid
relatively
little
attention on a more general level to the nature of legal texts,
the
literary conventions that produced them, and the technologies used
to
store and disseminate them. This book aims to start remedying that
deficiency.
Writing,
Civilization, and
Law
During
the past few decades, scholars of literature, psychology, education,
history,
anthropology, linguistics, and related fields have begun to investigate
the
evolution of writing and its impact on our culture and its institutions.
David
Olson has suggested that the development of alphabetic
writing
systems gave Western civilization many of its defining features.
According
to an influential article by Jack Goody and Ian Watt, writing
made
it possible to begin distinguishing myth from history.
It
is therefore
not
accidental that major steps in the development of what we now call
"science"
followed the introduction of major changes in the channels of
communication
in Babylonia (writing), in Ancient Greece (the alphabet),
and
in Western Europe (printing).
Some
scholars suggest that the development of writing, especially the
phonetically
based alphabet that arose in ancient Greece, has not merely
influenced
our civilization and culture in dramatic ways, but has fundamentally
altered
how people think. According to Eric Havelock, Greek
literacy
changed not only the means of communication, but also the shape
of
the Greek consciousness. In a similar vein, Walter Ong argued that the
development
of literacy fostered abstract thinking, categorization, and
logical
deduction.
Although
no one doubts that the rise of literacy has had a profound
influence
on human civilization, the extent of its impact is controversial.
Even
more so is the issue of whether and how literacy influences cognition.
Nonetheless,
no one doubts that a literate society is quite
different
from
one that is purely oral. The debate is not about whether
writing
has had
an impact on our civilization, but rather about how
and
how
much.
The
spread of literacy is also held to have had important ramifications
for
our legal systems. Goody has posited that writing effectively
distinguishes
custom
from law. And the
ability of the population to read and
write
is claimed to have promoted important political and legal institutions,
democracy
in particular.
One
of the central aims of this book is to investigate these issues as
they
relate to the law. What impact does the adoption of writing have on
the
law? What is the role of writing in our legal system today? What is the
nature
of legal texts? And how are written wills, contracts, or statutes
different
from
those that are retained solely in the minds and memories of
those
subject to them?
The
Technologies of Writing
and Communication
A
closely related issue is the technologies of communication. Despite the
undeniable
effect that developing literacy had on ancient civilizations, the
process
of writing changed very little over the ensuing millennia. Essentially,
it
involved an individual placing meaning-bearing marks of some
kind
on a medium (parchment, paper, stone, wax, etc.) that was capable of
displaying
those marks. We still do this today when we write with pencil
or
ink.
Only
in the fifteenth century did the next major revolution in communication
technology
occur. Before this time, scribes had to laboriously write
and
copy texts one at a time. As a result, written materials were expensive
and
scarce. The invention of the printing press made relatively cheap and
identical
copies of a text widely accessible. Like writing, printing has been
associated
with monumental societal movements, such the Renaissance,
Protestantism,
and the scientific revolution.
As
we will see, the printing press also had implications for several areas
of
the law. It now became possible to create and distribute very large
numbers
of copies of important legal documents, especially statutes and
judicial
opinions. For example, when the English parliament first started
to
enact statutes, lawyers and judges would have been unlikely to rely very
much
on the exact words of the law. At best, they would have had a
handwritten
copy
of an original document contained in a government archive.
But
once they had a printed copy that was certified to be an exact
reproduction
of
the text that Parliament had debated and adopted, the words in
that
text began to assume much greater significance.
Interestingly,
there are other major developments in the technologies
of
communication, such as radio, telephones, and television, that have had
a
huge impact on our lives and culture. Yet they have had little influence
on
the law. True, it is almost impossible these days to imagine the
practice
of
law without telephones. And television depicts one trial after the
other,
both
real and fictional. Still, the nature of the law and our legal system
(as
opposed
to the daily practice of the profession) have scarcely been affected
by
these technologies.
Why
is it that the development of writing and printing have had much
greater
influence on the law than have radio, telephones, and television?
All
of them are important technologies of communication. The difference,
I
believe, is that law has traditionally been a predominantly textual
enterprise.
Radio,
telephones, and television transmit sound and images. Law,
on
the other hand, relies very heavily on the written word.
More
recently, the technology of writing and the nature of the texts
that
it produces are undergoing epochal changes caused by the development
of
computers, mass storage devices, and the Internet. Now that cases
and
statutes are easily and cheaply accessed online, the shelves of books
that
traditionally line the walls of law firms have largely disappeared or
become
decoration. Lawyers are increasingly filing documents such as motions
and
briefs electronically, rather than sending a courier to court with a
bundle
of papers. Almost all legal research is conducted via computers and
the
Internet. Electronic contracting has become routine.
Some
scholars take the view that computers and the Internet will have
as
great an impact on our civilization as the development of writing and
printing
did. Jeff Gomez, in a printed book bearing the title Print
Is Dead,
points
out that reading on a computer screen is a vastly different enterprise
than
reading out of a book: What's going to be transformed [is] the
ability
to read a passage from practically any book that exists, at any time
you
want to, as well as the ability to click on hyperlinks, experience
multimedia,
and
add notes and share passages with others. All this will add up
to
a paradigm shift not seen in hundreds of years.
A
more sanguine view is taken by Nicolas Carr, who has written extensively
about
technology. He recently published an article with the title
Is
Google Making Us Stupid?
The
basic
point is that people read
less
than they used to, or read differently. Carr quotes people who were
once
voracious readers but who have stopped buying books altogether, or
who
claim to have lost the ability to read a longish article on the web
or
in print. A survey
published by the National Endowment for the
Arts
in 2004 found a dramatic decline in the percentage of the population
that
reads literature (defined as novels, short stories, plays, and
poetry).
Similarly,
research from University College London, sponsored in part
by
the British Library,13 reports that
people seeking digital information on
the
Internet do not usually read the content of websites from start to
finish.
Instead,
they engage in a type of skimming activity: they view just one
or
two pages from an academic site and then "bounce" out, perhaps never
to
return. The figures are instructive: around 60 per cent of e-journal
users
view
no more than three pages and a majority (up to 65 per cent) never
return.
According
to the authors, people searching for information
online
do
not engage in reading in the traditional sense; rather, they are
browsing
through
titles, abstracts, and content pages looking for quick wins.
Carr,
who cites this study, concludes that Internet users today not only
read
differently, but they also think differently.16 These
claims, of course,
mirror
those made regarding the impact of writing, and like those claims
they
should be taken with a grain of salt.
Nonetheless,
there can be no doubt that many aspects of our lives and
culture
are being radically transformed by modern technologies of communication.
This
is true also of the legal world.
Technology
and Law
A
scholar who predicts that computers and the Internet will result in
dramatic
changes
in legal culture is Ethan Katsh. He observes that, as opposed
to
conventional writing or printing (that is, traditional text), electronic
media
distribute information much more broadly and quickly, that users
interact
differently with it, that images become relatively more prominent,
and
that information can be organized more flexibly. Electronic
media
are
less stable, less fixed, and less tangible than writing and printing.
And
the
boundaries between different types of media (such as text, graphics,
and
sound) are beginning to blur.19 Katsh
predicts that these developments
will
have significant consequences for the system of precedent and how
lawyers
research and access the law.
The
process is well underway. The best example is contracts, which today
are
routinely transacted online, sometimes without a scrap of paper
being
exchanged or printed. In a similar vein, lawyers are more likely to
read
a case or statute online these days than in a book.
Yet
while the media are changing, writing and text remain tremendously
important
to the law. A will or testament still invariably consists of ink
on
paper, without multimedia content or other modern embellishments.
Statutes
remain almost entirely written text, even though they are widely
distributed
by electronic means and could easily include sound, pictures,
or
video. Likewise, judicial opinions remain mostly text, although they
occasionally
contain
graphics (usually in an appendix) and in one instance
contained
a reference to a video available on the court's website.
These
exceptions
prove the rule, however.
Past
experience suggests that it is easy to overstate the potential impact
of
new technologies on the law. In 1992, two legal scholars, Ronald Collins
and
David Skover, published an article entitled Paratext in the Stanford
Law
Review.21 They
suggested that, although our legal consciousness is
mediated
by print, nontextual forms of storing and transmitting information,
which
they call paratexts, will ultimately challenge the dominant
role
of traditional text and writing in the legal system. Collins and Skover
predicted
that paratexts, which can include any form of electronic communication,
will
come to supplement and eventually replace written evidence
and
documentation. The official record of trials, as well as wills and
contracts,
will become paratext. This will rapidly change the Gutenberg
mindset
of the printed word.
Collins
and Skover were mainly concerned with audio and video recording,
since
they were writing before computers were common in courtrooms
and
law offices. It is true that some courts have replaced the stenographer
with
mechanical audio or video recording machines. Yet, for
the
most part, a videotaped record must be transcribed into written text
and
be printed on paper for purposes of appeal.23 Moreover,
video has not
replaced
written text in most other areas of law. Video can be a useful
evidentiary
tool, but when the law requires wills and contracts to be in
writing,
paratext has so far not proven to be an acceptable alternative.
We
should also be cautious in drawing causal connections between
technological
changes and our culture in general or our legal system in
particular,
as Richard Ross has emphasized. The effect of social, economic,
and
political factors should not be ignored. The
invention of alphabetic
writing
in ancient Greece did not cause the rise of democracy in Athens,
although
it may have enabled or promoted its development. Nor can we
predict
with complete confidence the changes that modern technology
will
cause.
Overall,
however, the trend is clear. The traditional supremacy of written
text,
in the sense of ink on paper, is being challenged. Whether it will
be
entirely supplanted is open to serious doubt, but it will almost
certainly
be
demoted (or enriched) by modern technology.
Another
aim of this book is therefore to assess the impact that changes
in
the technologies of communication have had or may in the future have
on
the law. It goes without saying that the daily practice of lawyers is
being
profoundly
affected by computers and the Internet. In addition, the nature
of
the law and of legal transactions is also changing. Just as a written
statute
is
different from an oral decree, a statute printed on paper and bound
into
a book is not the same as a statute that is typed into a computer and
accessed
on the Internet.
Speech,
Writing, and
Conventions of Literacy
To
set the stage, we will begin in chapter 2 by examining the phenomenon
of
writing more closely, concentrating on how it differs from speech.
In
many respects, writing is nothing more than a means of representing
speech
in a more enduring form. Yet this simple observation has tremendous
implications.
For example, the relative permanence of written language
makes
it possible for a text to be transmitted over great distances
and
long stretches of time. Writing may not be essential to governing a
large
state or empire, but it certainly facilitates the process.
Moreover,
as societies become more literate, a strong belief tends to
arise
that it is good for laws, as well as for many private legal
transactions,
to
be reduced to written text. When that happens, there is a tendency for
the
text of those writings to become increasingly authoritative, a process
to
which I refer as textualization.
Historically
speaking, the earliest legal texts were almost always records
of
spoken transactions. As such, they functioned merely as evidence of an
underlying
oral event. Over time, however, the written text often became
regarded
not just as evidence of a legal event, but as constituting the event
itself.
The text was no longer just a record of the law. Rather, it had become
the
law. Statutes therefore had become textualized.
Legal
professionals textualize a contract or statute not just by writing
down
the essence of what they agreed to or decided. They carefully choose
and
edit the exact words that will function as a definitive statement of the
terms
of the will, contract, or statute. The essential transaction is no
longer
the
act of reaching agreement or making a decision; it is the text that
the
authors created. It is therefore not surprising that those who need to
interpret
a contract or statute (often judges) tend to take the words in
the
text very seriously.
Textualization
is just one of the literary practices of the legal profession.
Of
course, most of the textual conventions of lawyers and judges (such as
rules
relating to spelling) are the same as those in other realms of human
endeavor.
Yet some of the law's distinctive literary practices, in particular
textualization,
are unknown to the lay public. These conventions have the
potential
to create problems for those who engage in a legal transaction
but
are not familiar with the literary practices that govern the drafting
and
interpretation
of the resulting text.
Having
explored in general the nature of writing and the textual practices
of
the law, we will be in a better position to examine and understand
specific
categories of legal texts. Although we will spend a fair amount of
time
discussing the evolutionary development of wills, contracts, statutes,
and
judicial opinions, our concern is not in the first instance with what
happened
hundreds of years ago. The history is often interesting for its
own
sake, but the reason for exploring it here is primarily to illuminate
our
current situation. Thus, by comparing oral lawmaking in medieval
England
with the highly literate process that is used today, we can better
understand
the nature of modern statutory texts.
Wills
Testaments
or wills were typically declared orally in the presence of witnesses in
Anglo-Saxon England. After literate clerics came to England
around
ad
600,
members of religious orders would
sometimes write down
the
terms of a will. Such documents were merely evidentiary, and for a
long
time they were not considered very good evidence when compared
with
the memories of the witnesses who were present.
As
the society became more literate, however, writing gained greater
respect,
so that the written will came to be viewed as the best evidence of
what
happened. Eventually, the concept of a will (a word that originally
referred
to
a mental state) became coextensive with the document that bore
this
title. More recently, the text of a will has come to be regarded as the
final
and only expression of the testator's intentions. Wills have, in other
words,
become highly textualized.
The
literary conventions of will making have often created difficulties
for
the testators on whose behalf the will is deemed to speak. For
instance,
suppose
that a testator makes informal changes to a will after it
is
executed, such as crossing out one amount of money and substituting
a
larger amount. Such changes are usually invalid and in some
jurisdictions
can
have the perverse effect of invalidating the gift entirely, even if
the
testator meant to increase it. Also surprising to most people is that in
many
American states a will that is handwritten and signed by the testator
is
more likely to be carried out than one that is typed, signed by the
testator, and
notarized.
The
legal system needs to become more aware of ordinary conventions
and
beliefs relating to texts, especially when they conflict with legal
conventions
regarding writing. These problems are likely to become even
worse
as people begin to type and store their testamentary desires on
computers,
which
the law of wills does not currently recognize as being writings
(and
which are therefore invalid).
Contracts
Contracts
are interesting from our perspective because they can still be
entirely
oral, as in early England, or they can be made orally with a written
memorandum
as evidence, or they can fully textualized. This is reflected
in
the fact that the word contract is
ambiguous: it can refer either to an
agreement
(which is a mental state) or to the document containing the
agreement.
Whereas
writing and textualization are mandatory in wills law, parties
to
a contract can generally choose whether or not to textualize their
agreement.
The
customary way of textualizing a contract is to add what is called
an
integration or merger clause, which usually says something to the effect
that
this writing is the final agreement between the parties and that
it
supersedes any prior oral or written terms. From a legal point of view,
the
agreement is no longer something contained in the parties' minds;
instead, it
consists of the text that they have created.
On
the positive side, textualization adds a great deal of certainty to
commercial
transactions.
Yet it can, once again, become problematic when
ordinary
consumers are involved. Most people are not familiar with the
textual
conventions associated with merger or integration clauses, which
can
bind them to the text of an agreement that is at variance with what
may
have been said or negotiated. And the clauses are often buried in small
print
or lurk behind an easily overlooked link on a web page.
Furthermore,
rapidly evolving communication technology has dramatically
transformed
the nature of the contractual text. Unlike wills law,
which
continues to demand writing on paper and very strict execution
requirements
(typically, a signature by the testator in the presence of two
witnesses),
it has become extremely easy to enter into a contract on the
Internet.
The very loose requirements of electronic contract formation
(best
illustrated by one-click shopping) promote quick and easy commercial
transactions,
a boon for both businesses and consumers. Yet modern
contracts
are often imposed with so little formality (by merely opening
a
box of software, for instance, or by clicking on a link of a website)
that
consumers
may find themselves unwittingly bound by a text that contains
highly
one-sided terms, often reinforced by an integration clause whose effect
they
do not understand. Whereas the textual practices of wills law are
sometimes
too strict, those relating to contracts may be too lax.
Statutes
We
will next discuss statutes. The earliest laws written in English were
various
Anglo-Saxon codes. These codes were almost entirely evidentiary
or
descriptive of current customs. But in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries,
formal
efforts at lawmaking become evident. These early statutes
were
written down by a clerk after a legislative proposal had been adopted. They
were generally quite loosely interpreted by judges, who might not
even
have had a copy of the statute in their possession. It's hard to be a
textualist
if you don't have a text!
Eventually,
a formalized procedure for enacting statutes developed,
whereby
Parliament, with royal assent, enacted written proposals into law.
The
words of a statute were no longer merely evidence of what Parliament
and
the king decided; rather, those words came to be viewed as constituting
the
statute. In other words, statutes had become highly textualized.
Judges
in consequence began to pay more attention to the text.
Printing
was the next major development. Early printed versions of
statutes
were not always reliable. But by the eighteenth century, accurate
printed
copies that contained the exact words that Parliament had enacted
became
widely available. Courts began to scrutinize the text of statutes
ever
more closely. Although the practice has been moderated recently, a
fairly
literal method of interpreting statutes is still common in England.
In
the United States, legislatures also routinely enact written text, and
accurate
copies of legislation have been widely accessible since the founding
of
the republic. Nonetheless, American courts have never adopted as
literal
an approach as those in England. This difference illustrates that
while
textualization may enable a more literal style of interpretation, it
does
not require it or inexorably lead to it. Yet once the elements are in
place,
the attractions of a textual mode of interpretation are strong, as the
recent
rise of textualism in the United States has illustrated.
Statutes
will almost certainly remain written text for the foreseeable future.
Their
dissemination in an electronic format makes it possible to add
multimedia
content and to change them almost instantaneously when the
need
arises. But do we really want to be ruled by a paperless statutory re-
gime
that is maintained on a legislative website subject to continual
updating?
I
may be hopelessly old-fashioned, but I greatly prefer to be governed
by
statutes that cannot be frequently changed in the way that an Internet
site
updates stock prices and its weather report.
Judicial
Opinions and
Precedent
The
other major source of law in a common law system consists of judicial
opinions
(usually called judgments in
Britain). In contrast to statutes,
which
have long been regarded as quintessentially lex
scripta ("written
law"),
English lawyers and judges traditionally considered the common
law,
as revealed in their judgments, to be lex non
scripta ("unwritten
law").
These
lawyers were aware, of course, that many judgments were written
down
and published in books of reports. But the writing was done by reporters
sitting
in the courtroom, not by the judges themselves. The reports
were
summaries of what the lawyers and judges said in court, followed
by
a brief description of the result. There were sometimes multiple and
somewhat
different reports of a single case, and some of them were not
considered
very accurate.
More
recently, the reports of cases in England have become quite reliable. Nonetheless,
English judgments have resisted the textualization that is so
evident
in other areas of the law. Consequently, the law that is contained in
those
judgments remains surprisingly oral in style. The main reason is that
English
judicial opinions were traditionally delivered by word of mouth,
as
they often still are today. Judges pronouncing an oral (extempore)
judgment
choose
their words carefully, but because of the limitations of the
medium,
they simply cannot plan and fine-tune the wording of their decisions
to
the extent that a writer can.
It
goes without saying that English lawyers pay close attention to what
judges
say in their judgments, but they do not dissect the language in the
way
that they would analyze the text of a statute. They are concerned with
recovering
the gist or essence of the judge's words, especially in how it
reveals
the reasoning that the judge used to determine the outcome. For
these
and similar reasons, it is fair to say that the common law of England,
and
in particular the notion of precedent, is relatively more conceptual
and
less textual than its American counterpart.
The
orality and conceptual nature of English common law adjudication
has
largely disappeared in the United States. Early in the history of the
republic,
most jurisdictions began requiring appellate judges to issue opinions
in
writing. Courts also adopted the practice of having one judge draft
an
opinion that spoke, in a single voice, for the majority. Accurate copies
of
the texts of opinions, precisely as written by the judge, became widely
available.
It
would go too far to say that American courts have fully textualized
their
opinions, making them similar to statutes. Yet they have clearly
embarked
on
a path in that direction. The advantages of clear text in certain
sorts
of cases suggests that it may sometimes be worth proceeding. At the
same
time, there are some very real benefits to traditional common law
reasoning,
which allows the law to evolve more naturally in the light of
changing
circumstances. Before heading further down the path of textualizing
the
common law, judges should sit back and contemplate the nature
of
the texts that they are creating, as well as the textual mode of
interpretation
that
they are encouraging.
Ultimately,
however, the future of the legal text is not entirely within
our
control. In particular, online databases have started to include more
and
more judicial opinions, including many that in the past would not
have
been published and would therefore be relegated to obscurity. This
practice
has resulted in a massive increase in the case law that is available
to
lawyers. The only effective way to search through these databases is by
means
of an electronic search engine. Unlike a human being with legal
training,
who can peruse a judicial opinion for concepts or principles, current
search
engines can only locate strings of text. As a consequence, the
digitizing
of judicial opinions has the potential to make the common law
more
textual and, concomitantly, less conceptual. It may lose the flexibility
it
once had to be interpreted and reinterpreted to fit new and unforeseen
situations.
Like
the Mesopotamian scribes who first began to write contracts, wills,
and
statutes on clay tablets, we cannot fully foresee the impacts of our
technological
innovations.
What we do know, however, is that it matters whether
we
make law by oral decree, by chiseling edicts into stone, by enacting
written
text
that is spread far and wide on parchment or printed copies, or by
typing
on a computer keyboard and posting the result on a website.