Federal Rules Interpreted as Barring Twitter Coverage of Trial from Inside Courtroom

Updated 1 month, 1 week ago

From United States v. Shelnutt (M.D. Ga. Nov. 2):

A reporter for the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer newspaper has requested that he be allowed to use his handheld electronic device (e.g., a BlackBerry or cellular telephone) during the trial of the above-captioned criminal case to send electronic messages describing the court proceedings directly from the courtroom to his newspaper’s “Twitter” website. The messages, called “tweets,” would then be available to any member of the general public who ...

accessed the newspaper’s Twitter website....

The Court finds that Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits “tweeting” from the Courtroom and that Rule 53 does not unconstitutionally restrict the freedom of the press under the First Amendment to the Constitution....

Rule 53 states in relevant part: “[T]he court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.” The Court finds that the term “broadcasting” in Rule 53 includes sending electronic messages from a courtroom that contemporaneously describe the trial proceedings and are instantaneously available for public viewing. Although “broadcasting” is typically associated with the dissemination of information via television or radio, its plain meaning is broader than that. The definition of “broadcast” includes “casting or scattering in all directions” and “the act of making widely known.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) 280 (1993). It cannot be reasonably disputed that “twittering,” as previously described, would result in casting to the general public and thus making widely known the trial proceedings. Moreover, it appears clear that the drafters of Rule 53 intended to extend the Rule’s reach beyond the transmission of trial proceedings via television and radio.

Prior to the 2002 Amendments to Rule 53, the Rule specifically prohibited the “taking of photographs” and “radio broadcasting.” The 2002 Amendments eliminated the modifier “radio” from broadcasting, leaving a prohibition against “broadcasting” generally and not just “radio broadcasting.” This change was purposeful, and although the Advisory Committee’s notes state that the Committee did not consider the change to be substantive, the notes do reveal that the Committee made the change with the intention that additional types of broadcasting would be covered by the Rule. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 53 advisory committee’s note (“Given modern technology capabilities, the Committee believed that a more generalized reference to ‘broadcasting’ is appropriate.”)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the contemporaneous transmission of electronic messages from the courtroom describing the trial proceedings, 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. Therefore, this type of broadcasting is prohibited under Rule 53, unless the application of Rule 53 is unconstitutional because it unduly restricts the freedom of the press under the First Amendment.

It is well settled that the restrictions contained in Rule 53 do not restrict the freedom of the press in an unconstitutional manner. The press certainly has a right of access to observe criminal trials, just as members of the public have the right to attend criminal trials. In this case, the press will be able to attend, listen and report on the proceedings. No restriction is being placed upon their legitimate right of access to the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court finds that its application of Rule 53 in this case does not violate the First Amendment.

Copyright © 2008

This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only.

The use of this feed on other websites breaches copyright. If this content is not in your news reader, it makes the page you are viewing an infringement of the copyright. (Digital Fingerprint:

)

73 comments on this story

PRO

50% positive

Showing 50 relevant reactions out of 73.

InternetLaw 1 month, 1 week ago on Twitter

RT @bensheffner “Cts split on if Crim Rule 53 bans live-tweeting a federal crim trial” Compare http://bit.ly/7q1rdi & http://bit.ly/4QT8Z4

VBalasubramani 1 month, 2 weeks ago on Twitter

split on whether Rule 53 bans live-tweeting a fed. criminal trial..compare http://bit.ly/7q1rdi & http://bit.ly/4QT8Z4 (@bensheffner)

bensheffner 1 month, 2 weeks ago on Twitter

Courts split on whether Crim. Rule 53 bans live-tweeting a federal criminal trial. Compare http://bit.ly/7q1rdi & http://bit.ly/4QT8Z4

bensheffner 1 month, 3 weeks ago on Twitter

@rachanee333 Thanks. A fed. judge in GA recently ruled that tweeting a criminal trial would violate Crim. Rule. 53. http://bit.ly/4QT8Z4

kevin_oshea 2 months, 1 week ago on Twitter

Fed. R. Civ P. 53 nixes "tweeting" by reporters? http://bit.ly/1Ch6Jk

Ander517 2 months, 3 weeks ago on Twitter

Twitter banned from federal courts? http://bit.ly/1d2fwD

The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » “Twitter Allowed in the [Maryland State] Courtroom …. for Now” 2 months, 3 weeks ago on Wordpress

[...] Media Consulting blog has a report, with links to journalist tweets on the subject. Compare this federal case barring Twitter reporting of a trial, though that one is under federal rules that generally ban broadcasting of trials. Categories: [...]

The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Federal Rules Interpreted … « Blogging 2 months, 3 weeks ago on Wordpress

[...] More here: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Federal Rules Interpreted … [...]

thisweekinlaw 2 months, 4 weeks ago on Twitter

At least one court has banned tweeting from the courtroom as a prohibited "broadcast;" what's next, email? see http://ff.im/-bczhk

Rex Gradeless 3 months ago on Wordpress

We’ve already seen a Kansas federal judge allow Tweeting inside the courtroom. — http://socialmedialawstudent.com/twitter/kansas-federal-judge-allows-twittering-media-in-courtroom/" class="reaction_link" target="_blank">http://socialmedialawstudent.com/twitter/kansas-federal-judge-allows-twittering-media-in-courtroom/

And they have allowed tweeting in Colorado courtrooms — http://socialmedialawstudent.com/twitter/colorado-judge-allows-twitter-in-courtroom/" class="reaction_link" target="_blank">http://socialmedialawstudent.com/twitter/colorado-judge-allows-twitter-in-courtroom/

England has allowed court order to be served via Twitter — http://socialmedialawstudent ... See all content Hide content

Federal rules bar Twitter in courtroom? « Schaffer Law Library Blog 3 months ago on Wordpress

[...] You can read more about Rule 53 at the Volokh Conspiracy. [...]

timkowal 3 months ago on Twitter

No twittering allowed from inside a federal courtroom. http://tinyurl.com/ylqj6qh

QOTD [Digital Daily] | Technology startup news GeekoPedia 3 months ago on Wordpress

[...] U.S. District Judge Clay Land bans Twitter from his [...]

Rebelyell 3 months ago on Wordpress

ray_g: I think it is pretty petty when some folks complain that they can’t live without their phones for a couple of hours.

My cell phone also contains my calendar, calculator, dictionary and many of my notes. It contains all my emails, may of which have important documents attached. I use it to jot down “to do” items as well as make my grocery list. I use it to look things up on the Web, ... See all content Hide content

QOTD | John Paczkowski | Digital Daily | AllThingsD 3 months ago on Wordpress

[...] U.S. District Judge Clay Land bans Twitter from his courtroom Print Sharevar obj = SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “QOTD”, url: [...]

Georgia Judge Bans Twitter From Courtroom | Social Media Law Student 3 months ago on Wordpress

[...] The Volokh Conspiracy [...]

Steve 3 months ago on Wordpress

I’m pretty sure pagers are also banned at the SDNY... although it wouldn’t shock me to find out the court makes exceptions for expectant fathers and the like.

As for the more garden-variety case of people whose kids have cell phones to call them in case of emergency... sheesh. How did we ever survive, back in the day, without any cell phones at all to call mommy in case of emergency? Now apparently ... See all content Hide content

The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Federal Rules Interpreted … 3 months ago on Wordpress

[...] Read More Here… Share and Enjoy: [...]

lls 3 months ago on Wordpress

Ryan and Richard,

What happened to pagers? Are they also banned? Are they available? Seems to me a pager would resolve your availability (need to be in touch) issues...

David Schwartz 3 months ago on Wordpress

The “rationale” that I’ve always heard is that broadcasting the proceedings may cause witnesses (and perhaps even counsel) to focus more on how they’ll play to the broadcast audience than in advocacy, the truth, and basically how they’ll affect justice.

Personally, while I agree that this is a legitimate concern, I believe the public’s right to not have its access to things that are supposed ... See all content Hide content

eapenthampy 3 months ago on Twitter

You can't tweet from a federal courtroom proceeding. http://bit.ly/1d2fwD

bob 3 months ago on Wordpress

Bob — then don’t bring the phone to the courthouse or meeting, expecially when you know ahead of time that they are not allowed. Simple really.

Great, thanks, why didn’t I think of that?

Let me pull out a 8 1/2x14 legal pad and write that down.

marciahofmann 3 months ago on Twitter

Court interprets Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to bar tweeting from inside courtroom. http://bit.ly/1Ch6Jk

Ryan 3 months ago on Wordpress

ray_g: Bob — then don’t bring the phone to the courthouse or meeting, especially when you know ahead of time that they are not allowed. Simple really.

It’s not quite as simple as you make it out to be. Plenty of us carry a cell phone/Blackberry for plenty of different purposes. For instance, a friend of mine carries his everyone over the last month or so because his wife is pregnant. There ... See all content Hide content

MarkWBennett 3 months ago on Twitter

I can't tweet from federal court? http://bit.ly/3R9Rg9 (Volokh)

Bruce Hayden 3 months ago on Wordpress

I think that the distinction between narrow casting and broadcasting is weak. The antenna still broadcasts a radio signal. And, realistically, a radio broadcast from a courthouse doesn’t actually “broad” cast from the courthouse, but rather, is relayed to a radio tower where it is transmitted indiscriminately. But until then, any radio transmission from within the courthouse would be just as narrowly ... See all content Hide content

egd 3 months ago on Wordpress

Anderson: Anyone know the purpose of Rule 53 in the first place? I am puzzled what public interest is served by this rule.

The only reason I can think of is the possibility of prejudicial or secret evidence that is inadmissible or otherwise to be kept out of the public eye.

With delayed reporting, the judge has an opportunity to order the evidence kept secret, something not possible ... See all content Hide content

Steve 3 months ago on Wordpress

In the SDNY you can’t have any sort of cell phone or Blackberry inside the courthouse, you have to check it at the door. Unless there’s some kind of exception for the media, I always assumed the constitutional issue would have been argued and decided long ago. This was a rule even pre-9/11 if I remember correctly.

ErrorFix 3 months ago on Twitter

The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Federal Rules Interpreted ... http://bit.ly/28r6qb

Kenvee 3 months ago on Wordpress

Seems reasonable to me. The reporter can step outside to Tweet, just like to email or phone in updates. It seems like an acceptable compromise between allowing public access and minimizing disruptions.

SuperSkeptic 3 months ago on Wordpress

Fairly good “evolving interpretation.”

We may still have issues with the underlying nature of the rule, but the 9 have spoken on the First Am. issue, so: *shrug*

Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Federal Rules Interpreted as Barring Twitter Coverage of Trial from Inside Courtroom -- Topsy.com 3 months ago on Wordpress

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Larry King, Social Lattice. Social Lattice said: #analytics The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Federal Rules Interpreted ...: S.. http://bit.ly/1r8xql #facebook #twitter [...]

sociallattice 3 months ago on Twitter

#analytics The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Federal Rules Interpreted ...: S.. http://bit.ly/1r8xql

#facebook #twitter

Cristiano 3 months ago on Wordpress

Oren: Bob, any cell phone capable of receiving email can be locked with a password of arbitrary complexity.

Can and should. I continue to be amazed at the number of lawyers who fail to properly safeguard their clients’ information by password-protecting access to their email devices. There is, in my mind, no legitimate excuse for failing to do so.

ray_g 3 months ago on Wordpress

Bob — then don’t bring the phone to the courthouse or meeting, expecially when you know ahead of time that they are not allowed. Simple really.

LKWave 3 months ago on Twitter

The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Federal Rules Interpreted ...: This post was mentioned on Twitte.. http://bit.ly/1r8xql

#Social

twit_new 3 months ago on Twitter

The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Federal Rules Interpreted ...: It cannot be reasonably disputed that “twi... http://bit.ly/1bcq8U

Oren 3 months ago on Wordpress

Bob, any cell phone capable of receiving email can be locked with a password of arbitrary complexity.

As to the case at hand, tweeting is obviously narrowcasting, not broadcasting, and should be permitted under a highly-technical (read: pedantic) reading of Rule #53.

bob 3 months ago on Wordpress

Ray-g–

Like many people, my “cell phone” contains thousands of e-mails (and documents) containing confidential client information.

How would you feel handing that over to some stranger for safekeeping for a couple of hours?

richard 3 months ago on Wordpress

“And, during the last case in which I was involved, everyone entering the courtroom had to check their cell phones with the Marshall.

In the USDC for the Central District of California, they had a rule until very recently where cell phones would be allowed in the building but not if the cell phones had a camera and they wouldn’t check the phones at the security desk. I arrived at the court ... See all content Hide content

Technically Legal » Blog Archive » No Tweeting in Federal Court 3 months ago on Wordpress

[...] Federal Court has found that live tweeting courtroom events violates Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which prohibits [...]

ray_g 3 months ago on Wordpress

“And, during the last case in which I was involved, everyone entering the courtroom had to check their cell phones with the Marshall.

It’s just more petty pompousness from the bench.”

Perhaps it is a (IMO) reasonable reaction to the fact that there are always a few who won’t turn them off or set them to silent ring. I’ve had this problem with business meetings.

I think it ... See all content Hide content

uberVU - social comments 3 months ago on Wordpress

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by ahockley: Federal rules interpreted as barring Twitter from the courtroom: http://bit.ly/4nccR7...

VinceKuraitis 3 months ago on Twitter

@bobcoffield (Can I do email? :) US v Shelnutt - Fed Criminal Rule 53 prohibits tweeting from the courtroom http://tinyurl.com/ylqj6qh #TWiL

bobcoffield 3 months ago on Twitter

US v. Shelnutt (MD Ga. Nov 2 2009) - Fed Criminal Rule 53 prohibits tweeting from the courtroom: http://tinyurl.com/ylqj6qh #TWiL

Anderson 3 months ago on Wordpress

Anyone know the purpose of Rule 53 in the first place? I am puzzled what public interest is served by this rule.

bob 3 months ago on Wordpress

“What would prevent the reporter from sitting in the rear of the courtroom, stepping out occasionally and “tweeting?” That should be ok I would think.”

In the jurisdiction where I practice, use of cellular phones is prohibited anywhere inside the Fed. Ct. house. And, during the last case in which I was involved, everyone entering the courtroom had to check their cell phones with the Marshall ... See all content Hide content

Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Federal Rules Interpreted as Barring Twitter Coverage of Trial from Inside Courtroom -- Topsy.com 3 months ago on Wordpress

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Aaron Hockley and Moshe Glickman, Heather Hope. Heather Hope said: RT @mglickman: Federal Rules Interpreted as Barring Twitter Coverage of Trial from Inside Courtroom http://ff.im/-bcvRE [...]

No Tweeting in Federal Court, and why I think the Supreme Court should get on Twitter « Josh Blackman's Blog 3 months ago on Wordpress

[...] to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure #53. From United States v. Shelnutt (M.D. Ga. Nov. 2) (H/T Volokh), A reporter for the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer newspaper has requested that he be allowed to use his [...]

GM Roper 3 months ago on Wordpress

What would prevent the reporter from sitting in the rear of the courtroom, stepping out occasionally and “tweeting?” That should be ok I would think. Of course, the reporter would have to sit in the rear of the court and may lose his seat... Oh the sacrifices our intrepid journalists risk.

Twitter Facebook

DASHBOARD

PRO
MY KEYWORDS

PRO
- ubervu
- Apple iPhone
- Nexus One
+ Add
ADD
CANCEL
TOOLS & WIDGETS