To the question of the feasibility of using legal propaganda as a form of legal nurturing

Abstract

The article attempts to clarify the term "legal propaganda” on the basis of clarification the essence of propaganda and justify the inappropriateness of using this phrase in relation to the form of legal education in a modern democratic state.
 It was found that both in the legislation and at the doctrinal level, the term "propaganda” is given a mostly negative meaning and is considered as a tool for spreading mostly anti-social, harmful, socially dangerous and frankly illegal phenomena and processes.
 It has been shown that most definitions of propaganda contain the words "manipulation”, "pressure”, "deception”, which clearly demonstrate that any propaganda implicitly includes false or distorted information, a deliberate violation of the rules of formal logic and is a hidden manipulation. It is argued that propaganda is rightly opposed to pluralism, and this makes this term inconsistent with the general principles (fundamentals of the constitutional system) of a modern democratic legal state.
 The given "systematic signs of propaganda” prove the impracticality of using the term propaganda in relation to positive phenomena and processes, such as "legal propaganda”:
 It is assumed that the use of the term "legal propaganda” can be avoided due to the development of doctrinal thought regarding legal influence and the method of persuasion.
 The possibility of a limited application of legal propaganda as a special-legal aspect of the operation of law in society, for example, some legal and educational areas in the activities of the police ("propaganda for compliance with traffic rules”), is assumed.
 The opinion that any coercion, suggestion, manipulation, imposition in law is inappropriate in view of the prevailing anthropocentrism is defended. It was concluded that the method of action through the system of values is more relevant and effective.