Democratizing the discourse on criminal justice in social media: the activity for justice for Roman Zadorov as a case study

The paper addresses how opening legal materials and enabling online discourse can democratize participation in criminal justice debates. It situates the inquiry in the broader context of legal institutions’ slow adoption of social media and transparency tools, asking what happens when investigative materials are digitized and made accessible and when discursive arenas exist for broad participation. Using the Roman Zadorov murder case in Israel as a focal case, the study explores the conditions, characteristics, and impacts of democratizing public discourse on law and justice. The author defines democratization here as expanding participation in the generation and dissemination of information and knowledge, noting parallels to platforms like Wikipedia. The article posits that social media and open access can broaden involvement beyond traditional insiders (police, lawyers, judges) to include outsiders (activists, laypeople), potentially reshaping public understanding and scrutiny of legal processes.

The article weaves relevant literature into its framing rather than presenting a separate review. It references debates on openness and access to judicial information and the rise of online arenas for public discourse (e.g., Findlay 2015; Fox and Rose 2014; McLachlin 2003; Ure 2019; Warren 2014). It draws on public administration literature about government adoption of social media, transparency, and institutional change (Fountain 2001; Mergel 2013; DePaula et al. 2018). Conceptually, democratization is framed as expanded participation in knowledge production (Benkler 2006; Dryzek 2009; Papacharissi 2004; Parkinson and Mansbridge 2012). Practical frameworks for civic co-production and participation levels are cited (Linders 2012; Luyet et al. 2012). The paper also connects to scholarship on citizen crowdsourcing in surveillance, crime control, and regulatory monitoring (Logan 2020; Megiddo 2023; Koskela 2010; Trottier 2013; Yadin 2023). On transparency, it notes both enabling functions of ICTs (Bertot et al. 2010) and critiques or paradoxes of openness (Stohl et al. 2016; Bannister and Connolly 2011). The importance and effects of visual materials in legal contexts and social movements are supported by communication and legal scholarship (e.g., Porter 2014; Mattoni and Teune 2014; Doerr et al. 2015) and cognitive/affective processing research on visuals versus text (e.g., Graber 1990; Keib et al. 2018). It contrasts the Zadorov case with the pre-digital Amos Baranes affair to underscore how digitization alters preservation and accessibility (Leshem 2014; Finnemann 2014).

The study employs a qualitative netnographic approach to examine social media activism related to the Zadorov case. Netnography involves observing, participating, and analyzing online communities and content across platforms. Scope and duration: Longitudinal netnography over more than seven years, from December 2015 (after the Supreme Court rejected Zadorov’s initial appeal) through March 2023 (acquittal following retrial). Data sources and procedures: - Observations and ongoing communication with Facebook group administrators and key activists, discussing group dynamics, dilemmas, splits, and discoveries. - Content analysis of 15 active Facebook groups focused on justice for Zadorov, collectively exceeding 300,000 members. The most active groups were sampled daily; others weekly. Real-time documentation of posts and responses was conducted. - Interviews: 25 semi-structured interviews with administrators of different social media groups covering biographical background, knowledge and opinions about the case, perceptions of goals and impact, group management, and perceived effects. Interviews lasted approximately 60–90 minutes, were conducted by four interviewers under supervision of the lead researcher, recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Ethical approval was obtained; informed consent was secured from interviewees. Triangulation of participant observation, interviews, and content analysis was used to build a comprehensive understanding of the activism. The study also contextualizes the online activity within the broader media environment, including the creation of the Truth Today website (2016) hosting digitized legal and investigative materials and activist-generated YouTube videos with subtitles.

- Three enabling characteristics of democratized discourse in the Zadorov case: 1) Digitization of investigative materials: Extensive police and legal documents, videos of interrogations and reconstructions were digitized, making duplication and distribution feasible and durable, contrasting with pre-digital cases like Amos Baranes. 2) Transparency and accessibility: Materials diffused from defense and close stakeholders to broad public access via DOC/PDF, images, and videos, culminating in the 2016 Truth Today website that centralized police, legal, media, and other documents with navigation and volunteer transcription of handwritten items. Language barriers (Russian) were addressed by activists who retranslated and subtitled videos; approximately 110 hours of video with speech and an additional 47 hours largely without speech were processed and uploaded to YouTube. 3) Existence of discursive arenas: Large-scale Facebook groups (initiated c. 2009; surging post-2015) served as hubs for dissemination and discussion; by mid-2019 membership surpassed a quarter million; the study identified 15 active groups totaling over 300,000 members. Administrators and activists acted as mediators/framing agents outside institutional media constraints. - Four principal implications: 1) Perpetuation: Persistent online availability of sensitive materials about community members (e.g., students, teachers), effectively lacking a right to be forgotten and impacting reputations long term. 2) Utilization of raw materials for content creation: Activists employed documents, images, maps, and official data to craft persuasive visual artifacts (memes, annotated photos), leveraging cognitive advantages of visuals for attention, retention, emotion, and mobilization. 3) Construction of alternative narratives: Using accessible materials, activists developed scenarios that diverge from the establishment’s narrative (e.g., teens involved; drug-related motives; satanic cult; severe mental illness; “secondary arena” theory), sometimes persisting online despite police having ruled them out. 4) Impact on individuals and institutions: Alternative narratives fueled harassment and defamation of private individuals (including classmates) and public servants (prosecutors, investigators), potentially eroding trust in legal institutions. - Additional observations: Public access can paradoxically create confusion; users may conflate available uploads with the totality of evidence, inferring investigative gaps where materials are simply absent from public repositories. Activist activity contributed to sustained public agenda-setting and, according to cited work, to discoveries relevant to the decision to grant a retrial. Empirical scope indicators: 15 Facebook groups; >300,000 members; daily/weekly sampling; 25 admin interviews; 110h subtitled interrogation/reconstruction video plus 47h mostly silent footage.

The findings show that when investigative materials are digitized, made accessible, and paired with robust social media arenas, participation in legal discourse expands beyond traditional insiders to include wide publics. This democratization enables collaborative sense-making, agenda-setting, and scrutiny, addressing the paper’s central question about conditions enabling meaningful non-state participation in criminal investigations. However, these same conditions foster unintended consequences: confusion over evidentiary completeness, the proliferation of alternative or conspiratorial narratives, reputational harms, and challenges to institutional credibility. The Zadorov case demonstrates how activist mediation and visual content intensify engagement and influence public opinion, keeping the case salient over many years. At the same time, the case reveals the tension between open justice and procedural integrity: public assessment of evidence differs from judicial standards, and materials available online may be partial or decontextualized. The study underscores both the civic educational potential of openness (improved understanding of investigative and judicial processes, crowd-supported analysis) and the risks (misinformation, harassment, institutional distrust). These dynamics are likely to generalize as digitization and social media embed deeper into legal communication ecologies.

The article conceptualizes the Zadorov social media activism as a case of democratized legal discourse driven by digitization, transparency, accessibility, and active online arenas. It documents key implications—enduring online presence of materials, activist production of visual content, formation of alternative narratives, and consequential effects on individuals and institutions. Overall, expanded public engagement offers benefits (civic education, accountability, discovery of investigative shortcomings, collective analysis) alongside harms (misinformation, defamation, erosion of trust). Looking forward, legal institutions should engage constructively with these realities: develop strategies to counter misinformation, foster constructive dialogue, and harness collective intelligence and online resources to enhance investigative and judicial processes and accountability. The ongoing trends of digitization and social media discourse are durable, requiring institutional adaptation to maximize public value while mitigating harms.

The study focuses on a single, high-profile case in Israel, limiting generalizability. It relies on qualitative netnography, observations, content analysis, and interviews with group administrators, which may reflect community dynamics specific to the Zadorov ecosystem. The article notes that transparency on social media can be partial or arbitrarily controlled, and publics may lack tools for comprehensive analysis, potentially leading to misinterpretation. Public repositories may not include all investigative materials (e.g., items not submitted to court), so online collections can be incomplete and decontextualized. Broader issues around openness and transparency in the legal domain are acknowledged as important but beyond the scope of this article.