Judge Orders Social Media Content Removed for Murder Case: Agree?

by Fef Posted 2012/10/12 00:14:49

Related Topics: Rape, Murder, Facebook, Giants, Art, Twitter, Media, Social Media, Photo, Court, Killed, Image, Images, AFP

Read More

26 votes
Read all 20 opinions
View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Agree	16 votes	62%
	Disagree	10 votes	38%

Deputy Chief Magistrate for Australia’s State of Victoria, Ms. Felicity Broughton, ordered social media giants Facebook and Twitter to remove content she deems potentially prejudicial to a jury in murder case. The Aussie judge agreed with the defendant's lawyers that such social media may make it difficult to assemble an impartial jury. Erik Sass of MediaPost.com reports: Broughton made the decision in response to the defense attorneys for Bayley, who argued that the angry commentary on social media sites would make it difficult to assemble an impartial jury to hear Bayley’s case.
The judge did not ban a 20,000-strong march in memory of the rape/murder victim, Jill Meagher. Did the march have less effect on biasing a jury than social media? Should government have the right to ban social media? Should Twitter and Facebook comply with an Australian court's request?
government ban social media twitter facebook comply australian courts request

government ban social media twitter facebook comply australian courts request

Killed ... Jill Meagher. Photo: AFP photo/Australian Broadcastin

MEDIAPOST.COM reports:
Aussie Judge Orders Social Media Content Removed for Murder Case - 10/11/2012

Add a comment above

Swampdog 2012/10/12 00:42:56

Agree

+3
I live 15 miles from Sanford Fla. the social media has already tried and convicted George Zimmerman of murder for the death of Travon Martin even before the trial has begun. Big brother is everywhere and so is the echo of his followers!
>> See Replies

More polls by Fef

Michael 2012/10/14 05:23:23

Agree

Any one could write anything and not give the defendant the opportunity to cross examine.it is considered hearsay as it should be.

reply
lucky 2012/10/12 16:26:59

Agree

I think it could fall under the Imminent lawless action clause. The swaying of a jury in a murder case is no small thing, although once the trial is over, that order should be lifted and the information allowed to flow freely.

reply
sjalan 2012/10/12 15:30:22

Agree

For the sole purpose of picking a jury yes I'd agree. Once the jury is seated and alternates chosen, then remove the restriction.

reply
SiliconSorcerer 2012/10/12 12:08:12

Disagree

Free speech is free speech here in America. I don't think facebook or twitter is based in Australia so the can blow it out their a...

reply
wolfshadow 2012/10/12 07:13:25

Disagree

If they aren't based in Australia then the court has no jurisdiction to order squat. Last I heard both are here in the US and subject to US law.... and last time I checked... we still were using the first amendment.

reply
sandra smith 2012/10/12 06:13:26

Agree

Historically, it's been difficult enough to assemble as nearly impartial a jury, especially ina high profile and emotionally charged case, such as this sounds, so anything that ADDS to that difficulty should be removed, and "texting, tweeting," etc. is a distraction and a potentially prejudicing source of information not part of a case that needs to not be part of the milieu!

reply
Kat ♪ 2012/10/12 05:01:56

Agree

Hard to find a jury that hasn't been tainted in todays electronic era.

reply
MarinerFH 2012/10/12 03:37:51

Agree

+1
It's a murder trial requiring a clean jury pool. Social media could harm that.

reply
Elaine Magliacane 2012/10/12 03:25:43 (edited)

Disagree

LOTS of people do not use facebook or twitter... my husband uses neither I only use facebook occasionally...so I could be on a jury and I assume lots of people could be found to sit on a jury that did not see anything.. the judge is WRONG to restrict free speech.

reply
P. Sturm 2012/10/12 02:30:59

Disagree

They really and truly need to write a Constitution with a Bill of Rights, instead of leaving judges shooting shadows in the dark trying to protect someones rights.

reply
lovemykiddos 2012/10/12 02:28:54

Agree

+1
Sure anything blocking an impartial jury should be blocked but it may have benn able to be handled better.

reply
Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA 2012/10/12 01:57:54 (edited)

Disagree

+2
We have to deal with FRAUD from leftwing "news" TV here. Zimmerman's case is an example. Twitter and Facebook are just opinions.

reply
Swampdog 2012/10/12 00:42:56

Agree

+3
I live 15 miles from Sanford Fla. the social media has already tried and convicted George Zimmerman of murder for the death of Travon Martin even before the trial has begun. Big brother is everywhere and so is the echo of his followers!

reply
sandra ... to Swampdog 2012/10/12 06:15:40

+1
This is an excellent example of why!

reply
Swampdog to sandra ... 2012/10/13 13:24:33

I agree.

reply
Lester 2012/10/12 00:39:53

Agree

+1
I'm not an expert in Australian law, but in the US a temporary restraining order is perfectly legal and such things are used all the time. As long as the ban is lifted once the trial is done, I don't see how this prohibits free speech. Defendants have a right to an unbiased jury, and society has a right to information. Limiting information until after the trial is over protects everyone's rights.

reply
Jimbo 2012/10/12 00:32:39

Disagree

+1
I believe in free speech. Australia does not support free speech.

There are a lot of people on SH who do not use FB or Twitter. I don't think it will make a difference if on social media or not.

reply
sandra ... to Jimbo 2012/10/12 06:19:21

Unfortunately, all it takes is one or two on a jury, to taint the entire case. If it was YOUR life would you still feel that way? I support free speech too, and I also believe we are ALL accountable for our words as well as our deeds; and when our words would cause conflict of interest, such as during a trial, each of us should be accountable enough to refrain from such media.

reply
Jimbo to sandra ... 2012/10/12 07:10:31

I understand but it is still free speech. So people should not be allowed to post anything about ongoing trials? What about the news? There is a lot of stuff on the news too.

Do you have a Facebook or Twitter account?

reply
cookiemonster 2012/10/12 00:20:37

Agree

+1
Should not be on social media at all

reply