| ||||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSIn a remarkably expansive interpretation of rules banning broadcasts of criminal cases, U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land found that tweeting was a form of broadcasting because it "would result in casting to the general public and thus making widely known the trial proceedings."
"The contemporaneous transmission of electronic messages from the courtroom describing the trial proceedings, and the dissemination of those messages in a manner such that they are widely and instantaneously accessible to the general public, falls within the definition of 'broadcasting,' " Land wrote.
Land's decision might be linguistically defensible, but it's hard to see the logic in a ruling that bans text-only updates. At least it can be argued that photos, radio, TV, streaming video, or other rich media might distract participants from concentrating on the trial. But a reporter's silent filing of a Twitter update doesn't seem likely to affect witnesses, lawyers, jurors or anyone else in the courtroom.
In fact, other federal judges have allowed reporters to Twitter updates from the courtroom. In one high-profile case, U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten in Wichita ruled earlier this year that a reporter for the Wichita Eagle could tweet updates about a trial of six alleged gang members.
Despite the ruling, Land did offer a partial compromise. He said the courthouse will have a media room near the entrance, where members of the press "can use their electronic reporting devices near but outside of the courtroom."
That's better than requiring journalists to leave the building to tweet, but still inconvenient for reporters who are trying to get information to the public as quickly as possible.
Posting updates via Twitter is one way that newspapers -- currently fighting for survival -- are attempting to remain relevant. Unlike questionable proposals to give newspapers government subsidies, or to rewrite copyright law, allowing reporters to tweet doesn't have a downside.
35 people recommend this article.
RSS FEEDS
I'm not convinced that any court case is so critical that waiting until you get out of the room is too much to ask. The "public interest" can hold out until the judge says "dismissed" and the "need" to tweet live is no more than the desire to be first to report.
What does the justice system have to hide if it won't allow this?
While the public has a right to some transparency, broadcasting information about witnesses arguably leads to risk of intimidation and endangers fair trials. Previous safeguards to balance constitutional issues have included using illustrators to convey courtroom scenes rather than photographers. But today, if you've gone to a conference that has been live tweeted, it's an experience that shares many characteristics with courtroom stenographers. Livetweeting information about trials could provide easily-searchable information about witness addresses, work history etc.
Your column seems to suggest that judges sets precedents that others must abide by. When it comes to electronic media, it's my understanding that each judge is generally able to make their own ruling as to what is and is not permissible at the onset.