Twitter Use Banned in Baltimore Courts
Image by stevegarfield via Flickr
On the heels of my post about Republicans’ dominance on Twitter comes news of another government official who is not so eager to embrace the social-networking tool. Via Romenesko, the Baltimore Sun reports that an administrative judge for the Baltimore Circuit Court has banned “the use of any device to transmit information on Twitter, Facebook, Linked In or any other current or future form of social networking from any of the courthouses within the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.”
The judge took issue with a recent case involving former Baltimore mayor Sheila Dixon, and the fact that journalists were sending out a steady stream of tweets and online updates while covering her trial. In issuing the order, the judge equated the use of Twitter with the use of TV cameras, which aren’t allowed. But the Sun takes issue with this parallel:
It is impossible to imagine a situation in which posting information on Twitter from the hallway outside of a courtroom would be in the least bit disruptive, or that forcing someone to walk outside the courthouse before tweeting would do anything to enhance security. The absurdity of the court’s order is underscored by the impossibility of enforcing it.
Other entities have tried to limit or ban the use of Twitter, only to meet overwhelming outrage. The SEC athletic conference, for example, tried to forbid fans from using any form of social media during SEC games, only to reverse the policy a few days later. The NFL has considered a similar ban; and ESPN sportswriters are not allowed to tweet anything but material that supports the network.
The government of Mexico is currently flirting with a bill that could severely restrict the use of Twitter; which it says would reduce crime.
But the ban on Twitter in courthouses is particularly troubling given the obvious necessity of having a justice system that operates in an open, transparent manner. The court shouldn’t be able to take ownership of a person’s own thoughts and perspectives, which is what is being published when a person updates their Twitter account.
Any restriction on media in the courtroom is supposed to take the most limited route so as to uphold the First Amendment – for example, instead of a blanket ban on reporters in a certain case, a judge can choose to have reporters simply not hear specific portions involving sensitive information. A policy that forbids Twitter use in any circumstance sure doesn’t seem to make any attempt to find a less restrictive way of ensuring people’s protection.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
I just went through jury selection in this very court; there were already standing rules against text messaging, presumably put in case for the same reason. Any logic behind banning interactions with social networking sites in the courtroom would also apply to text messaging, so perhaps it makes more sense to look at the original logic banning text messaging?
Here’s the 2006 order regarding pagers, text messaging, etc: http://www.baltocts.state.md.us/about/publications/admin_order_cell&communication_devices_in_courtroom.pdf
I don’t see any fundamental difference between tweeting information about court proceedings or taking digital photographs/video. Both can be abused to illicitly communicate forbidden material (juror identity, sensitive testimony or evidence, etc) in contempt of court. Both communicate factual information about a case. Both can be accomplished with or without causing any disruption.
Broadcasting a trial is necessarily disruptive to some degree (have to set up all of the recording equipment, etc), but allowing cameras isn’t.
Is there a US Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of camera bans? Brief Googling tells me that a number of states have found bans compatible with the first amendment.
Great thoughts, Zach. The Supreme Court has addressed the constitutionality of cameras in the courts (including just a couple weeks ago when it upheld a ban on them in the Prop. 8 trial). In California, cameras in state courts are left to the judge’s discretion. In federal courts, I think it’s even stricter.
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s sad that Thomas et al finally acknowledged a far-reaching right to privacy. Strip searching children: OK. Distributing addresses and phone numbers of judges and their families to protest abortion on their doorstep: OK. Broadcasting trials: must protect the privacy of bigots!
In response to another comment. See in context »I absolutely agree with you; but to be fair, they said that strip-searching children was NOT ok. http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/07/an_unreasonable_and_repulsive.html
In response to another comment. See in context »Thankfully! I don’t mean everyone in this majority or the whole Court, though; just the Thomas dissent.
In response to another comment. See in context »