points us to a case in Connecticut state court, in which "broadcasting" from the courtroom was forbidden, but there was a debate over whether or not Twittering from the courtroom should be allowed
. The arguments go back and forth, noting that there are some
similarities to broadcasting with Twitter, but not necessarily enough. The judge then looked at the reason
behind prohibiting broadcasting, and realized it was to keep direct images from being seen, but that reporting from the courtroom should be allowed. The only concern is if the actions were disruptive (such as with a loud keyboard), but noted that such problems could be dealt with on a case by case basis. The guy trying to restrict the use of Twitter claimed that such "communications tend to be either trivial or inaccurate and thus play no useful role in educating the public about the judicial process," but the judge pointed out that a court should not be controlling the "substance of courtroom reporting," and said that Twittering would be allowed, so long as there is no disruption (which would be dealt with specifically). Seems like a reasonable outcome.