It’s no secret that laws governing what is and isn’t part of the public judicial process are woefully behind the times. Technology is advancing faster than the legal system can keep up.
But that can cause some problems. In fact it already has. A judge in Georgia has ruled that reporters are not allowed to use Twitter to post play-by-play descriptions of a federal drug trafficking trial. The judge ruled that tweeting is the same as broadcasting, though the reporters are arguing that it’s simply akin to taking notes. The judge ruled that using Twitter from the courtroom could compromise the integrity of the trial.
But let’s think about this logically for a second. There are some key differences between tweeting and broadcasting. Broadcasting, at least to me, implies a verbatim representation of the trial. If a reporter were posting word-for-word transcripts, that would be broadcasting. It’s impossible to do that via 140-character tweets. Tweeting, on the other hand, is essentially a reporter’s minute-by-minute impressions of the trial. Essentially, it’s what a reporter does when he takes notes. He observes and records as he sees fit.
Perhaps more importantly is that broadcasting, (again, at least in my mind) implies something far more disruptive. Yes, it’s disruptive to have sound and video equipment in a courtroom. But tweeting can be done via cell phone, which everyone in the courtroom already has (save, most likely, for the defendant). And cell phones can be set to silent, which makes tweeting minimally disruptive, if disruptive at all.
As the MediaPost article points out, there’s precedent for allowing courtroom tweeting. A federal judge allowed it in a trial of some gang members in Kansas and the trial was not affected. Granted, that judge only allowed reporters to tweet from a “media room” just outside the courtroom, but that most likely made it MORE disruptive because reporters had to constantly get up to tweet. Tweeting from the gallery would have, in fact, been less disruptive.
The beauty of our judicial system is that it’s supposed to be completely transparent. And most judges and lawyers I know believe that said transparency is crucial to the process. In my mind, if technology can make it easier for interested parties to keep abreast of how our judicial system is working, judges should be all for it.
Remember: crime and court stories are among the most read/viewed stories in the news business. People want to see and read about that sort of thing. That indicates, at least to me, an overwhelming public interest in knowing what happens during a trial – a public interest that FAR outweighs any perceived compromise of the trial’s integrity. The real compromise to the integrity of the judicial system is when it gets covered up and hidden from view.
Now, does the average person need to know a play-by-play account of a trial? No. Absolutely not. But the fact that some people want it is enough to make the case that play-by-play accounts, made available through outlets like Twitter, is not only useful, but crucial to ensuring the integrity of the judicial process.
