Twitter in the Courtroom : Do You Object ?
VII . CONCLUSION
The arguments on both sides of this issue are compelling . Advocates for the use of Twitter view it as a vehicle for the public to gain access to the courts and therefore to become educated and informed . It is seen as an instrument that reinforces transparency and promotes public trust . As one Illinois court stated , “ what goes on in court is the business of the people . Courts function best and most effectively when they are available for public view . When courts are open , their work is observed and understood , and understanding leads to respect .” 54 Microblogging serves these important goals . Tweeting updates from court results in faster , more efficient transmission of information to the public .
The opposition is concerned that Twitter threatens the fair administration of justice . “ Tweeting from within the court may physically disrupt judicial order and decorum , impede proper fact finding , and jeopardize security .” 55 It could lead to juror and witness misconduct , threatening the due process rights of the accused .
Many courts have struck middle ground . They have outlined measures that allow reporters to use Twitter in the courtroom but also protects the privacy interests of court participants and lessens the impact on jurors .
It is abundantly clear that social media tools like Twitter allow people to stay connected and to have instantaneous conversations about what is happening . Whether the courtroom is an appropriate place for this conversation continues to be the subject of debate .
54 Id . 55 Packer at 584 .
15