Tweeting Deemed Not 'Broadcasting' And Allowed In Courtroom
from the nice-of-them dept
Michael Scott 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.
Filed Under: broadcasting, connecticut, courtroom, tweeting
Comments on “Tweeting Deemed Not 'Broadcasting' And Allowed In Courtroom”
Holy spinning newspapers!
This just in: being reasonable is now newsworthy! Americans experience dizziness from simultaneous mass double-taking!
Follow this on Twitter! We’re out of exclamation points?
Re: Holy spinning newspapers!
This just in, fewer exclamation points left on Earth than atoms of Fancium@ Use your reserves with dear caution@ We have squandered this precious resource and failed to provide monetary incentives to make more for everyone else@
This also just in: death of joke causes neck injuries across the country from severity of disgusted head shakes.
Doubly reasonable
It’s also the right way to approach this. Go back to first principles – *why* is broadcasting prohibited? What about that reasoning applies? What doesn’t? And make an informed decision on that basis.
Sadly, I’m impressed. This level of quality should be the norm.
Re: Doubly reasonable
“This level of quality should be the norm.”
QFT
Re: Doubly reasonable
“Go back to first principles – *why* is broadcasting prohibited?”
They do not want news stations with cameras sitting in the court room taking up space and distracting people. Think any time that there is a high profile case would it be good to have the four local stations and a national one or two taking up space.
So, one would assume that tweeting pictures (i.e., from your cellphone) would still be banned? Because that would be broadcasting direct images.
Re: Re:
I am wondering the same thing.