#NothingButTheTruth: Using Social Media to Educate the Public about Courts (original) (raw)
Related papers
Courts and Social Media: What do Judges and Court Workers Think?
There is also an increasing tendency of courts to make general non-publication orders rather than rely on people knowing and complying with the common law of sub judice contempt. In other words, courts are prohibiting by specific order what would be prohibited by contempt laws anyway. 12 Keyzer, et al, above, n 8, at [2.3]. 13 ibid.
Twitter and SMS from the Courtroom' (2020) 11(1) International Journal for Court Administration 7
International Journal for Court Administration, 2020
Twitter and other social media in the judiciary have been a topic in this magazine before. Judith C. Gibson, for example, dealt with “The future of judges in a social media world” in the October 2016 issue. This short article aims to illustrate the problem of the use of social media in the courtroom using a small, recent practical example from the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
Twitter and SMS from the Courtroom
International Journal for Court Administration, 2020
Twitter and other social media in the judiciary have been a topic in this magazine before. Judith C. Gibson, for example, dealt with "The future of judges in a social media world" in the October 2016 issue. This short article aims to illustrate the problem of the use of social media in the courtroom using a small, recent practical example from the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
Australian Courts and Social Media
Alternative Law Journal, 2013
Social media, like Facebook and Twitter, are now pervasive in many sectors of Australian society. However, Australia's courts are generally taking a cautious approach to using this technology to enhance and complement their processes. Where courts have used social media, it has generally been in the context of regulating its use by others (for example, by limiting journalists' live tweeting of court cases or juries' use of extraneous social media 'research') 1 rather than considering how they might make active use of social media themselves. In this article, we examine the extent to which Australian courts are using social media. We consider the opportunities and challenges posed by such media for courts and assess the extent to which they could make greater use of the technology. The rise of social media Social media generally refers to the 'set of online tools that are designed for and centered around social interaction', 2 including such platforms as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and blogs. Unlike more traditional mediums such as print journalism, radio and television, social media depend on user-generated content and allow people to communicate and share content in a social setting. As a result, social media platforms are designed to facilitate a dialogue between users, rather than acting merely as a broadcast mechanism. This emphasis on dialogue and interaction is also what distinguishes social media from more traditional, static websites that are generally directed towards the passive viewing of content. The key characteristics of major social media platforms are as follows: Platform Description Global Users Australian Users (March 2013
Open Justice or Open Season? Developments in Judicial Engagement with New Media
QUT Law Review, 2012
The principle of open justice underpins the trial procedures of common law systems but is subject to exceptions, including name suppression orders that in the main seek to ensure trials are fair. A degree of tension between the judiciary and the media is inevitable when publication of information is prohibited or postponed, but a relationship of interdependence tends to subsist between the courts and traditional media. The emergence of new media has disrupted the status quo, challenging both the traditional media's unique news publication capacity and the courts' practical ability to suppress information. This article focuses on the potential for juries being adversely influenced by digital information extraneous to the trial process, and is structured as follows: relevant principles are identified; the relationship between traditional media and the courts, and impact of new media are then outlined; responses to the challenges presented by new media follows, and conclusions are drawn. The article draws on Australasian precedent, in particular, recent developments in New Zealand case law and legislation relating to information suppression.
LAW, LAWYERS AND THE SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE 21ST CENTURY: CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS
LAW, LAWYERS AND THE SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE 21ST CENTURY: CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS, 2019
Social media also can shape or affect relationships and the nature of communications between lawyers, their clients and the general public. Members of the legal profession similarly ought to consider what impact the use of social media could have on their professional and ethical obligations. Those obligations affect a lawyer and judge in all aspects of his or her life and communication. Social media does not change that position even though persons often relax or drop their guard when expressing themselves on social media. We cannot put the social media genie back in its bottle. Social media is now ingrained in the daily life of the community. Of course, its use by any section of society, including the courts or lawyers, cannot be ignored, let alone forbidden or discouraged. It will most often involve legitimate expression of opinion or communication criticizing judicial decisions. But it’s continuing impact on our lives if not properly managed will lead to more challenges for courts and lawyers. Change while inevitable, has its challenges.
Public Engagement with the Criminal Justice System in the Age of Social Media
2021
Exemplified by the landmark trial of O.J. Simpson, news media coverage of criminal cases in the United States is now regularly dominated by tabloid style coverage, complete with fixation on the victims and accused in criminal cases. Investigators have shown that such coverage of criminal proceedings is linked to decreasing levels of public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system. What is not yet understood is how rapid changes to the media universe in terms of online news sources and social networking are impacting coverage of criminal proceedings and public understanding of the criminal justice system. By surveying the American public on their news consumption habits, participation in social networking, knowledge and opinions of highly publicized criminal cases, and perceptions of the legitimacy of the justice system, we offer one of the first analyses of social media's impact on public interaction with the criminal justice system. Ultimately we find little evidence that social media is enhancing citizen knowledge about or confidence in the criminal justice system, but we do uncover strong evidence that social media engagement with criminal trials leads to a greater desire for vengeance and encouragement of vigilante attitudes and behavior.
Courts’ Use of Social Media: A Community of Practice Model
International Journal of Communication, 2017
This article examines the development of social media as a communication tool for courts, judicial agencies, and tribunals. It presents the findings of a study into a small, but vibrant network of public information officers from this sector who shared knowledge and worked creatively in developing their social media practice at a time when these platforms were emerging as a serious consideration for government stakeholder communication. The article achieves two outcomes. First, it advances the limited scholarly literature into how courts, judicial agencies, and tribunals have transitioned to social media. Second, it develops a theoretical framework based on a community of practice model, which has application across any sector or industry in which practitioners work in siloed communication roles or are required to incorporate information and communication technologies at a rapid pace.
Social media jurors: Conceptualizing and analyzing online public engagement in reference to legal cases
Jurors are people who are exposed to legal proceedings and consequently exercise their judgment. A broad literature on law and film discusses the analogy between formal jurors, who are assigned to jury duty by the legal system, and "informal jurors"-"viewers-as-jurors" who encounter the legal system indirectly, through the media. In this paper, we identify a new category of "informal jurors", which refers to public discourse and actions concentrated on social media arenas in reference to legal cases. We argue that this category, which we call "social media jurors", maintains a tight correspondence with existing categories of jurors, but is distinguished from them by their extended abilities for speech and action. This article is based on a netnographic study, by which we illustrate our argument through the online activity in support of Roman Zadorov. Zadorov was convicted of murdering a young girl in Israel, while a large majority of Israelis continue to support his innocence and carry out extensive action on social media in support of this cause.