Twitter in the Courtroom : Do You Object ?
The United States Supreme Court has declared that the prohibition against broadcasting , as provided by Rule 53 , does not restrict the freedom of the press under the First Amendment , 15 since reporters can always utilize the old pen and paper method to communicate . Conversely , access to the court is still available to them . “[ The ] First Amendment guarantees that journalists may attend , listen , and report on judicial proceedings [; however ], this right does not extend to the right to televise , record , and broadcast trials .” 16 The definition of broadcasting describes the sending of electronic messages from a courtroom that contemporaneously describes the trial proceedings and are instantaneously available for public viewing . 17 “ In reaching its decision , the Court determined that , although the term broadcasting is typically associated with the dissemination of information via television or radio , its plain meaning is broader .” 18 It determined that the contemporaneous transmission of electronic messages from the courtroom and the dissemination of those messages in a manner such that they are widely and instantaneously accessible to the general public falls within the definition of broadcasting as used in Rule 53 . 19
Some district court judges have allowed journalists to tweet in their courtrooms despite Rule 53 . They apply Rule 57 ( b ) to exercise their discretion and allow reporters to tweet . The rule states that judges may regulate any practices occurring in their courtroom so long as that practice is consistent with federal law and the local rules of the district . 20 Accordingly ,
15 Id . at 140 . 16 Unites States v . Hastings , 695 F . 2d 1278 at 1280 ( 11 th Cir . 1983 ). 17 Shelnutt . 18 Id . 19 Id . 20 Fed . R . Crim . at 57 .
7