The criminal justice system often lacks transparency, limiting public access to information and hindering informed discourse. This paper explores how the digitization of investigative materials, coupled with their public availability and online discussion platforms, can democratize this discourse. It uses the Roman Zadorov case, a highly publicized murder trial in Israel, as a case study to illustrate this phenomenon. The Zadorov case, characterized by extensive online engagement, offers a unique opportunity to examine the conditions, characteristics, and impact of democratizing legal discourse on social media, expanding participation in information generation and dissemination beyond traditional stakeholders like law enforcement, lawyers, and judges. The concept of 'democratization' here refers to broader public participation in generating and sharing information and knowledge, similar to models seen in collaborative projects like Wikipedia. Existing literature highlights various initiatives promoting citizen engagement in government and law enforcement, ranging from information provision to co-decision-making. This research contributes by focusing on crowdsourcing of information and discussion specifically within the context of criminal investigations. The Zadorov case, with its extensive digital materials and robust online communities, provides a compelling backdrop for this analysis.

Existing scholarship emphasizes the importance of releasing information and fostering online forums for public discourse on legal matters. However, the integration of legal institutions into the social media landscape remains relatively recent. The paper draws upon relevant literature on citizen sourcing, government as a platform, and levels of public involvement in governmental processes (Linders, 2012; Luyet et al., 2012). The comparison to Wikipedia's collaborative model for knowledge production highlights the advantages and disadvantages of democratizing information access and creation. The study also references literature on transparency and its role in empowering citizens to make informed decisions (Bertot et al., 2010) while acknowledging potential limitations such as unequal access to information and the need for critical analysis skills among the public (Stohl et al., 2016; Bannister and Connolly, 2011).

This study employs a netnographic research approach, a qualitative method adapted for digital environments, to examine the social media activity surrounding the Zadorov case. Data collection spanned over seven years, from December 2015 to March 2023, encompassing the period following the rejection of Zadorov's appeal and the subsequent rise in activism, culminating in his acquittal. The methodology involved several key data collection strategies: 1. **Observations of social media activity:** Ongoing communication with group administrators and key activists provided insights into group dynamics, including internal divisions and significant discoveries. 2. **Analysis of content posted on social media groups:** Fifteen active Facebook groups (with over 300,000 members) were monitored, analyzing posts and responses using daily sampling for the most active groups and weekly sampling for others. 3. **Interviews with social media group administrators:** Twenty-five interviews were conducted with administrators, exploring their backgrounds, goals, activism impacts, group management strategies, and perceptions of their activities. These interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. The netnographic approach allowed for a rich understanding of the online communities, their dynamics, and the implications of their actions. Triangulation of participant observation, interviews, and content analysis ensured a comprehensive picture of the 'justice for Zadorov' activism.

The study reveals three key characteristics of the online media environment surrounding the Zadorov case: digitization of investigative materials, public accessibility to these materials, and the presence of robust online discussion platforms. These characteristics have several implications: 1. **Preservation of Materials:** The digitization and online availability of extensive investigative materials ensure their long-term preservation, impacting the lives of individuals mentioned in the documents, even years after the events. This lack of a 'right to be forgotten' raises ethical concerns. 2. **Creation of Visual Materials:** Activists utilize the readily available 'raw materials' (police reports, videos, etc.) to create visual content, including memes and illustrations, to communicate their arguments and perspectives more effectively. The use of visual materials is shown to be particularly impactful in mobilizing and influencing public opinion. 3. **Creation of Alternative Narratives:** The public access to investigative materials allows activists to construct alternative narratives regarding the murder, often differing significantly from the official narrative presented in court. These alternative narratives, even when unsubstantiated, can gain traction and shape public perceptions. 4. **Impact on Individuals and Institutions:** The creation of alternative narratives and visual content can lead to the defamation of both private individuals (witnesses, students) and public officials involved in the case. This highlights a key challenge: while the democratization of information can foster accountability, it also risks creating misinformation and reputational damage.

The findings demonstrate how the digitization and transparency of legal materials, combined with the accessibility of online discussion forums, significantly impacted public discourse surrounding the Zadorov case. This 'democratization' expanded participation beyond traditional legal actors, enabling citizens to engage actively in interpreting evidence, forming opinions, and shaping the public narrative. The case highlights the potential of social media for holding institutions accountable while also underscoring the potential for the spread of misinformation and the risk of reputational damage to individuals. The study's findings emphasize the need for a nuanced understanding of the complex relationship between online activism, transparency, and the integrity of the legal process. Future research should focus on developing strategies to mitigate the negative consequences of online activism while harnessing its potential for constructive engagement and accountability.

The Roman Zadorov case provides a valuable case study for understanding the democratization of legal discourse in the digital age. The study highlights the benefits of increased transparency and public access to information while acknowledging the risks associated with misinformation and reputational harm. Future research should focus on developing strategies for responsible engagement with online activism in the legal field, ensuring the integrity of the justice system while fostering greater public participation and accountability.

The study focuses on a single case study, limiting the generalizability of the findings. While the netnographic approach offers rich qualitative data, it may not be fully representative of all online activity surrounding the case. The analysis relies primarily on Facebook data, excluding other online platforms that may have contributed to the discourse.