Judge bans Twitter from court

Twittering from court is prohibited, according to a federal judge in Georgia who banned spectators from sending live updates from a criminal trial.

U.S. District Judge Clay Land in Georgia wrote that Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure should be interpreted to ban Twitter.

Rule 53 says: "Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom."

A reporter for the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer had asked permission to Twitter updates from the corruption trial of local attorney Mark Shelnutt, which was scheduled to start on Monday.

Read more of "Judge Bans Twitter From Court" at CBSNews.com.

[Seaspray0]

"...or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom." Not even twittering! Too bad the OJ Simpson trial wasn't in Georgia. I would have been gladly spared the nightly drama being pasted on all the major networks.

[synthetikz]

the term broadcasting is synonymous with dissemination of information. twittering falls within that umbrella. that being said, the judge's interpretation of the federal rule of civil procedure is entirely appropriate, and will certainly get upheld by the higher federal courts and will receive similar treatment from state courts with similar rules of civil procedure.

[Rod Roddy]

Good. It's about time someone put their foot down. Twitter is good and all but there is a time a time and place for it for it. Just like the old Byrds song says:

A time to gain, a time to lose
A time to tweet, a time to eat twinkies
A time for love, a time for hate
A time for peace, I swear it's not too late

Those guys were ahead of their time.

[ckurowic]

Ah, another judge with technophobia.

[Shaun822]

Nice try but the law prohibits "broadcasting." That would include twittering, facebooking, or any similar method.

[faceless128]

the interpretation seems to be fine. it's pretty clear that it covers any kind of broadcasting of the proceeding, wheether that be visual, audio or a text transmission of the events as they occur.

[jeverettk]

It's not technophobia, it's just good legal procedure, especially when evidence is being presented. For the same reason that you don't have witnesses chit-chatting with other witnesses or with jurors or jurors with other jurors, etc, you also don't want real-time outbound communication of testimony or argument being sent in a way that the court can't even monitor.

There are documented cases of witnesses texting each other right in the middle of a trial to check testimony - BAM! Mistrial!

[jeverettk]

It's not technophobia, it's just good legal procedure, especially when evidence is being presented. For the same reason that you don't have witnesses chit-chatting with other witnesses or with jurors or jurors with other jurors, etc, you also don't want real-time outbound communication of testimony or argument being sent in a way that the court can't even monitor.

There are documented cases of witnesses texting each other right in the middle of a trial to check testimony - BAM! Mistrial.

[play7]

indeed! people just think these days they can change the results of anything. People dont have any repect for others or the law. then again its those same people that text and drive....... sad people.

[Proud_Geek]

I can't wait till we have camera implants in our eyes.

[EvanSei]

this judge was completely in the right. I am scared for the day when it will be impossible to controle technology (such as camera eye implants like said above), and that day is coming very soon.

[jonimated]

Short range EMP in every court room. Done and done :P

[sixwins03]

short range EMP would kill electronic devices maybe an Electromagnetic field to block cell reception.

[BtmnHatesRbn]

It's good to ban devices in court. They way I see, if somebody wants the minutes or transcript of the court proceeding, then pay for it at the court desk like the rest of us. There's more, but that's the gist of it for me.

[sixwins03]

why would you pay for a public record.

[40list04]

To be honest, it seems a bit pointless. The proceedings are not being "broadcast". Just someone's observations and interpretation of the the proceedings. And it would be perfectly fine for someone to see and hear something in the courtroom, walk outside, tweet to his/her comments, and then enter the courtroom to start again. Nobody would dream of trying to block a reporter for a major news agency from reporting what happened in court (well, some right-wingers would probably love secrecy but they don't count as long as there is a constitution still somewhat in effect). Of course it makes perfect sense for the jurors to be blocked from such communication but blocking the rest of the populace is counterproductive. There is a reason that almost every criminal trial is held in a room with place behind the bar for the regular citizens to observe the proceedings. This is what is meant by "public" after all. Keep the public out and you are on the path to a star chamber instead of a court.

I write this as someone who worked for a large state court system. The state went so far as to provide a relatively well equipped "media courtroom" for big high-interest trials which had one-way windows on the rear soundproof media room. Said room had audio and video feeds provided for media use.

[jekur]

3 letters: L. O. L.

[Skulljibb]

Seems like a rather loose interpretation of Rule 53. It's time we elect judges/sheriff's and lawmakers who actually represent the current mentality of the population.

[Shaun822]

Better idea, elect/appoint judges and sheriffs that will follow the law, not the current mentality of the population as the two can often be at odds with each other.

[RobertAPierce]

The judges, law enforcement are not there to "represent the current mentality", they are there to apply/enforce the law as it is written. The lawmakers are elected to represent the wishes of the populace.

[play7]

oh joy..................its so simple .................Isnt it?????????????????????.....not

[someguynamedbob]

they should put a sign outside the court room saying no electronics and then emp blast the court room

[alegr]

Then watch for people with pacemakers dropping dead. Fun!

[Benf]

Hmmm, just why would anyone care?

[sixwins03]

someone always cares, there are nature lovers who dont want you to mow your lawn.

[OfficerNelson]

Have you ever been on jury duty for a murder case? If a juror was to tweet the names of other jurors working on the case, heads might be blown off after the trial.

[anubhav1008]

Broadcasting can never mean twittering, broadcasting shuld mean making use of voice/audible mode of transmission, and certainly in the context it is used it means live reporting.