Technology and the Law: Live Tweeting

The effects of modern technology on traditional professions like the law continues to be a topic of wide debate. In a speech for National Law Week Chief Justice Chris Kourakis South Australia's top judicial officer is reported by the ABC as saying that the traditional Court system "is struggling to keep up with technological change and that is hampering its effectiveness".

Further, in his speech, his Honour is quoted as saying "changes are needed to make the justice system more accessible to the public". One reform discussed in his Honours speech in this which has drawn much attention and puts technology into the spotlight is that of allowing journalists and media to use Twitter and Blogging technologies live from the court room during the hearing of cases.

His Honours speech refers to "the idea of journalists tweeting or filing stories from inside court rooms," saying . . . "[it] could become a reality in the near future, but not without restrictions". In his proposal, accredited reporters would be the only people allowed to broadcast information and tweeting would not be allowed to become "a running commentary".

An example of the controls which could be imposed given by his Honour is delaying tweeting of information to control what is reported, to cover evidence given which for legitimate reasons may need to be suppressed or corrected before its publication.

Currently the use of the Twitter techology to allow accredited journalists to file stories while in court is allowed in New South Wales, Victoria and in the United Kingdom and is likely to spread further, as the right parameters and practises are established.

In other areas of the law, Twitter is already coming in to wider usage as well, for example, if on any sitting day of the Australian Parliament you searched the hash tag #qt you'd see an online stream of thoughts, comments and reaction by observers, mostly journalists, and even the participant politicians themselves, during question time.

In the view of legal practice in SA, the Law Society can see both advantages and disadvantages to live Tweeting - its spokesman quoted as saying:

"Live Tweeting would have its challenges, but equally it's very important for the community at large to understand what happens in our courts."

Wider issues discussed by his Honour with respect to technology in his address, were the desire to see more court documents filed electronically, saving time and money; and extending the use of audio and visual technology during trials, "but not going as far as broadcasting trials .

Sources:

• Courts facing challenge of tweeting and technology (ABC)
• Plan to allow live tweeting from South Australian court proceedings (Adelaide Now)
• Tweeting from Courts (Kelly & Co)

"King Rat" not Unfair but Part of Political Vernacular

The Australian Press Council (APC) in a recent decision on 27 May 2013, has found that a digitally altered photograph of former House of Representatives speaker Peter Slipper was not highly offensive or unfair.

The person making the complainant, Jan Winstanley, said she was: "... horrified by the material and found it was highly offensive, unfair and goes against every principle that I am trying to instil in my children and in my workplace."

The photograph which covered most of the front page showed Peter Slipper MP standing at the Speaker’s Chair in the House of Representatives announcing his resignation from that office. His ears, nose and teeth digitally altered to resemble a rat, whiskers were added to his face, and a very large rat’s tail had also been appended to his body. The Daily Telegraph argued the altered depiction of Mr Slipper and the headline describing him as “King Rat” were “robust and powerful”. However it argued they were not unfair or offensive because they related to aspects of his behaviour falling within the long-established use of the term “rat” in the Australian political vernacular.

In its decision, the Council considered that the use of the term “King Rat” used in this context was not so highly unfair and offensive as to outweigh the public importance of allowing robust expressions of opinion on issues of political controversy, and in relation to digital alteration of the photograph, the Council considered that altered photographs are not necessarily to be assessed on precisely the same basis as if they were cartoons. 

This decision is yet another example of why there is little or no chance of balanced reporting in the Australian media while a situation prevails where one or two media organisation not only control most of the press but also having a large voice  regulating standards and ethics.

Another example of the same bias is the recent lampooning beyond reality and fact of the federal Minister for Communication for simply backing a mild legislative attempt to introduce some impartiality into media regulation. Legislation like that successful introduced in the UK to curb the excess caused by a media organisation run by the same company that owns the Daily Telegraph. 

Then there is the well known 2GB announcer who on an almost daily basis plays to bias and uses racist and derogatory terms to seed hatred and division. He too has fronted tribunal after tribunal and to date has profited from the experience in increased rating and thumbed his nose at any attempt to make him accountable.

Freedom of speech indeed is a most important sacred right but equally no right should be taken for granted or abused by people who hide behind it with the clear purpose of whipping up hate against those they do not like or favour.