Page 126 - Courting the Media Contemporary Perspectives on Media and Law

―Your Words Against Mine‖: States of Exception… 117

(yet) make a final judgment. It is precisely the strategic uses of this
interpretive delay in popular legal culture that is addressed in this analysis.
Sometimes these contested accounts cannot even qualify as legitimately legal
due to lack of evidence, an examination and inventory of which is the central
part of a preliminary investigation. The expression ―your words against mine‖
is based on the assumption that there are two parties, each one characterized
by being equal in strength to the other, reminding us of a concept taken from
the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, ―equality at arms‖.
In this part of the analysis I want to theorize the peculiar a/symmetry of
―your words against mine‖ situations. A closer look at some theoretical
resources can assist in illuminating the paradoxical character: a/symmetry in
discourse analysis, Habermas‘ theories on legal discourse and discourse ethics,
and Polanyi‘s theory of epistemology.

SYMMETRY AND ASYMMETRY
IN INTERACTION

In the text above we have explored some of the paradoxical characteristics
of ―your words against mine‖ situations one of which is the concurrence of
symmetrical and asymmetrical relations. The situation is symmetrical in a
legal sense because it necessitates legal action, e.g. it is legitimate to regard
this as a valid situation of contested accounts. On the contrary, it cannot be the
legitimate basis for any legal action because a ―your words against mine‖
situation can be defined by a lack of evidence. In both cases it is about a
situation characterized by ―equality at arms‖ between two equal parties. Their
equality is both the equality in the face of law (the condition for fair treatment)
and equality in terms of not being regarded as guilty until proven by the court.
In the first case, the parties are equal in their roles as persons seeking legal
action, e.g. they are equal in the face of law, which prescribes that persons
have equal access to the law. In the second case, the whole situation is
regarded as too thin in terms of evidence to possibly result in any decision by
the court. Either the evidence is missing or the only ones available are the
subjective reports by the individuals. The situation is asymmetrical because
the parties have differing opinions and perspectives. Another aspect of
asymmetry is that the situation can only be resolved by proceeding to a new
asymmetry, i.e. that any one of the parties are declared guilty.