Tweeting From the Courtroom
01/07/2010Various court rules may affect the ability of a journalist or member of the public to live-blog or tweet from the courtroom. For example, a court's administrative or local rules may prohibit or at least limit the use of electronic devices within a courthouse or courtroom. In some jurisdictions, the local rules allow electronic devices only at the discretion of the presiding judge. Rules of civil or criminal procedure have been interpreted as prohibiting or limiting live-blogging and tweeting from certain proceedings. Ultimately, the application of many of these rules rests with the presiding judge.
Law officials who are opposed to the idea are concerned that live-blogging or tweeting from inside the courtroom may adversely impact the proceedings. They believe access by witnesses to real-time posting about a trial may effect testimony and undermine the fairness of the trial. Clicking noises from keyboards and beeping from electronic devices may be unwanted physical distractions during proceedings. Certain types of sensitive subject matter, such as testimony from a minor, are also a reason for not allowing real-time coverage. Another concern is that what is tweeted to the public, is often done by someone who does not have extensive knowledge of the judicial system and therefore could be a misrepresentation of the proceedings as people not affiliated with a news organization have also been permitted to tweet.
However, there are many judges who welcome this type of live broadcasting. The idea that the judicial system is not understood or accessible enough to the public is one that would be addressed by allowing live-blogging. The more we can do to open the process to the public, the greater the public understanding the more legitimacy the public system will have in the eyes of the public, U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten has said. Judge Mark Bennet of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa explains his reasons for allowing the use of cell phones and computers, "I thought the public's right to know what goes on in federal court and the transparency that would be given the proceedings by live-blogging outweighed any potential prejudice to the defendant. . . . I allowed it because of my belief that we are the most mysterious branch of federal government and we need to find ways to be more transparent."
