Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a23196b7ebe5cc36

Jump to content

// Workers AI · dad joke modeWhy was the Legal Daily in court? It had a suit-able reputation.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal Daily (Chinese: 法制日报; pinyin: fǎzhì rìbào) is a People's Republic of China state-owned newspaper under the supervision of the Chinese Communist Party's Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission that is published in the PRC and primarily covers legal developments, such as important court rulings.[1] Before 2001, Legal Daily was an organ of the Ministry of Justice of the People's Republic of China.

Content

[edit]

The newspaper, like most other similar papers in China, also produces two neican editions (internal reference editions); one version is often sent to officials nationwide to keep them up-to-date on legal developments, and a more-restricted version is distributed more selectively to individual government officials who may be related to the topic at hand. Neican editions are produced whenever deemed necessary.[2]

Legal Daily generates revenue by publishing two market-oriented newspapers, one aimed at legal workers and the other for the general public, and a monthly magazine.[2]

References

[edit]
  1. Zhang, Xiaomeng (2014). "Public Access to Primary Legal Information in China: Challenges and Opportunities". Legal Information Management. 14 (2). British and Irish Association of Law Librarians: 132–142. doi:10.1017/S1472669614000322. S2CID 144250778.
  2. 1 2 Liebman, Benjamin L. (January 2005). "Watchdog or Demagogue? The Media in the Chinese Legal System". Columbia Law Review. 105 (1): 1–157. doi:10.7916/D8J67GK4. JSTOR 4099306.
[edit]