Slashdot Mirror
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Tweets Rulings
Landing an accepted submission, notanymore writes "The PA Supreme Court now has a Twitter account to post rulings and opinions. How could this be a bad thing? It's progression toward making public information more easily accessible. Some argue that it's public shaming but isn't it the same as a newspaper reporting on local crime?"
When I need to know the latest REAL news, I ALWAYS trust Twitter!
Twitter
We Report, HOLY SHIT JUSTIN BIEBER IS TRENDING AGAIN!!!!1
Some argue that it's public shaming but isn't it the same as a newspaper reporting on local crime?
What's a newspaper?
court is paid for by tax dollars, but the ruling is posted to a privately own service that could be monetized. is this a good thing?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
These are just links to rulings and opinions on the courts web site, not tweeting the actual details. Nothing to see here. The information itself is as accessible as it always was, although they have provided a marginally more convenient way to access it as soon as it is posted.
All court proceedings are (or should be) public. In criminal court, "the people" are the plaintiff, and therefore a member of the process. Civil court is a public mediation between two parties when they can't come to terms privately.
I'm not sure twitter is the best way to make the records easily accessible, but there's certainly nothing wrong with it. If you don't want your name on a public record, don't do anything wrong to begin with! (easier said than done, I know... especially with everyone suing everyone else these days just because they can get away with it)
To the best of my knowledge the cases that a state supreme court deal with are ones that will a) have been in public view for a bit and b) aren't minor offenses but instead ones that will have a broader impact and relevance. Suggesting that it is like public shaming is like saying that releasing the Roe vs. Wade decision is just an attempt to start gossip about someones sex life.
Will they be also tweeting things like "the opinion of this court is not available to Public"?
People who want to cheer the downfall of the USA, you can cheer, the soul of that country as envisioned by its founder is dead.
On another topic, Twitter. Bullshit artificial limitation (yeah yeah length of an SMS. What percentage of Twitterers actually use SMS instead of fancy-schmanscy smartphone anyway?) but popular because everyone else is using it...
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
...cause just wait until their twitter account gets hacked and they they start tweeting things inaccurately.
what ever happened to just having your own website display your own information?
or perhaps an RSS feed served by their own web server under their control?
Think it couldn't happen to you, see http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/16/tech/sesame-street-hacking/
there is a huge difference between the government and a 3rd party. For one, the judicial system already makes the ruling public, but does not broadcast so why the change. Generally, it has been the job of enterprising individuals to make news and broadcast(newspapers/bloggers). Does the courts lambasting someone through amplification of their communication fall under cruel and unusual? The question I would have is why broadcasting is necessary for the courts as it really has nothing to do with their role.
Supreme Courts don't examine criminal cases to determine the Truth. They almost never examine them for anything but findings of law: was the case tried in good accordance with all criminal and trial laws that applied? If they think it was, the lower court rulings stand. If they think it wasn't, they direct the lower court to retry the case or some such thing. Supreme Court decisions don't examine or comment on whether the accused is guilty or innocent, and they don't even care 'what really happened' or 'who the real killer was'.
As such it's awfully difficult to imagine many cases in which their decisions could bring shame to anyone except a bad lawyer.
How is posting a link to their webpage "lambasting" someone?
... isn't it the same as a newspaper reporting on local crime?
No, because it's done via computer. One of the general rules is that no matter how well something is understood, and how much settled law or custom there is on a topic, as soon as a computer gets involved, all this is forgotten, and everything has to be discussed (and sometimes fought to the death) from scratch.
We've been through this process a zillion times, every time some traditional activity involves a computer for the first time. The traditional metaphors don't work, because the mere presence of a computer cancels all human memory, and everything we knew must be relearned.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
How do you explain a judgement in an SMS message?
I could see a Google+ or Facebook page for publishing rulings, but tweets?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
How is this lambasting someone? It's public information. This information is available already as you say via other broadcast media. With the exception of accounts getting hacked, surely this ensures a degree of unbiased information. How is that a bad thing?
I've been drug through the legal system several times for various reasons. All unfounded and the court found the same. It was best that none of it was widely known, because the public is stupid and considers guilt and being charged with a crime to be the same -- even after exoneration.
The problems with this are obvious. "Public shaming" was written in the summary, but I think it will prove to be much worse than that for some cases.
The posts make no sense unless you understand lawyer speak, but I guess that's who they are targeting with with the information. Although wouldn't the lawyers already know how to use the website already? Take a look over at http://twitter.com/#!/SupremeCtofPA you have to follow the link to see what the information is all about.
Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
This is amazing me. Justices don't write their decisions in pencil, right? So how hard is it to PDF the decision and upload it somewhere?
These legacy locks the Old Boys have on content are amazing. I can see some of the exhibits waiting, but the court decision should be a snap. It's like "Select all court decisions this month --> Convert to PDF". The day someone break the bar's lock on pricing is the day we get fairness in law.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The Supreme Court of Illinois: http://twitter.com/#!/illinoiscourts
There are listservs as well.
http://www.aopc.org/T/SupremeCourt/SupremePostings.htm
It looks like the State of Pennsylvania does this. (Though they do limit the searches to separate types of court, e.g. Supreme Court vs Commonwealth Court rulings).
Also, don't get falsely accused of doing anything wrong. Also, don't do anything right that the idiots in the various legislatures have decided to make illegal.
In any case, our society has specifically implemented public shaming in the form of violent and sexual offender websites for some time now. No point whining about twitter at this late date; the precedent was set some time ago, has been to the supreme court, and found not wanting (by complete idiots, but hey, when has *that* ever mattered?)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So how hard is it to PDF the decision and upload it somewhere?
As hard as ignoring the legal fraternity lobby who would rather people pay them to look up information in legal documents rather than download it for free from the net.
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.
So how hard is it to PDF the decision and upload it somewhere?
Right. Here in the UK, our supreme court publishes all of its decisions on its own web site, and they are typically up within a day or two. Why do other courts not do the same thing?
So how hard is it to PDF the decision and upload it somewhere?
Pretty trivial. So why are you too incompetent to find it? The summary provided a link to a page on the PA court site that includes a link to all court opinions. The entire point of this article was about a Twitter feed that also contains said links. You look like a moron bitching and moaning about the lack of something that already exists.