Twitter and SMS from the Courtroom (original) (raw)
Related papers
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.
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
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 en los juicios: una revolución en la información periodística de tribunales
El uso de Internet y de las redes sociales en la crónica de tribunales es un fenómeno imparable que ha revolucionado la manera de informar tanto en televisión como en los medios de comunicación online. En cualquier caso, los efectos de Twitter, Facebook y de Internet en general sobre el dinamismo de los juicios, no se derivan sólo de la actividad periodística sino de su influencia decisiva en aspectos internos del proceso judicial, tales como la posibilidad de interactuación instantánea entre sus protagonistas, o de acceso en Internet a una información decisiva que no puede operar en el juicio, tal y como lo muestran los casos Joanne Fraill(2011) y Theodora Dallas (2012) en el Reino Unido. Ha sido el juicio a Oscar Pistorius, un juicio de alto perfil, el campo de pruebas para visualizar los cambios que las redes sociales, sobre todo Twitter, han introducido en la información sobre procesos judiciales. La retransmisión televisiva –en directo- del juicio ha integrado la crónica de Twitter de periodistas situados en la sala de juicio, pero no sólo eso, en muchas ocasiones han cobrado relevancia tuits de ciudadanos que han comentado las noticias. La televisión ha intensificado el efecto de Twitter, también el efecto de abrir la crónica de tribunales a la participación ciudadana, al dedicar espacio tanto en la televisión como en las websites de las televisiones para presentar, comentar y señalar las tendencias del día de Twitter sobre el juicio. Por otro lado, estas mismas webs dedicadas al proceso judicial (dentro de las webs de las cadenas televisivas que lo han retransmitido) constituyen un fondo documental de vídeos, fotografías, artículos de información y de opinión, y tuits cuya accesibilidad se ha hecho aún Mayor gracias a Internet. Resulta difícil prever qué consecuencias tendrán en el desarrollo de los juicios esta sobreactuación informativa, pero lo que es cierto es que se inaugurado una forma distinta de hacer periodismo de tribunales.
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.
International Journal for Court Administration, 2015
In many social realms, social media are employed by institutions to establish direct relations between their representatives and their clients or customers. In this article I explain why the civil law judge cannot be expected to begin using social networking sites to advance the transparency of the judicial decision-making process and establish a relatively open, form-free interaction with his or her 'clients'. The hybrid character of social media does not allow judges to utilize this form of communication to open up the 'backstage area', revealing the actual complex dynamics of the decision-making process, and transparently connecting the judicial 'onstage' performance in the courtroom session with the judicial 'onstage' performance when issuing a decision. On the one hand, social networking sites are direct, interactive, informal, and personalized communications media; but on the other, they are publicly available, open and basically perpetual record sites. Their direct, interactive, informal and personalized character is highly compatible with the multimodal, form-free self-representation of the modern judge in the courtroom. However, the media's public character makes them also part of the public performance of a judge issuing a decisions. This performance is characterized by a unimodal, formal self-representation. Legal sociologists as well as discourse scholars stress how heavily this continual process of public judicial self-representation is part of a persistent ritual that conflicts with direct, interactive, informal and personalized communication.
Jurors Using Social Media in Our Courts: Challenges and Responses
This article considers the use of social media by jurors during the trial and deliberation processes. The article presents examples of such conduct from Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. The article considers research on why jurors use social media, and discusses the likely prevalence of the issue. The article then discusses the risks this conduct presents to the defendant’s right to a fair trial and the administration of justice generally. Possible solutions are examined, including banning telecommunication devices, requiring jurors to take an oath and developing specific jury instructions. Research on the effectiveness of jury instructions is reviewed, and future directions for research, policy and practice noted.
An examination of social media's impact on the courts in Australia
Krawitz Marilyn an Examination of Social Media S Impact on the Courts in Australia Phd Thesis Murdoch University, 2014
There are several different forms of social media. 31 The most popular today are Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and MySpace. Eight hundred and twenty-nine million people used Facebook daily in June 2014, 33 there are currently about 500 million tweets daily, 34 and LinkedIn currently has over 313 million members. 35 In December 2012, it was estimated that 11.8 million Australians regularly used Facebook, 2.1 million Australians regularly used Twitter and 2.1 million Australians regularly used LinkedIn. 36 More than 60 per cent of Australians use any form of social media. 37 Other social media sites include Google+, blogs 38 and Flickr. 39 Twitter was created in 2006. 40 People using Twitter can write short remarks, called tweets, which anyone on the internet can see. 41 Tweets must be 140 characters or less. 42 Users can 'follow' people's tweets: this means that the tweets of the person whom one follows appear on one's homepage. 43 A person who tweets is called a tweeter; 44 tweeters can also use Twitter to send private messages to each other. 45