At the beginning of the hearing for the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, the judge banned the reporters, lawyers and others present at the hearing from "tweeting". One journalist didn't understand the point of banning technology in the court room. In a previous hearing she publicly posted, "In open court what difference is typing from pen & paper. Lawyers have laptops & blackberries. Why not public? …" It is interesting how easy it is to communicate information to the entire population even if something occurs behind closed doors. With this new technology there could be a whole new issue of allowing certain technologies in places like a courtroom where information is usually relatively private. The judge said that tweets could pose as a distraction. Even adults are being limited on their technology use now? This courtroom sounds like a school.
How are these new technologies going to be limited?
Should they even be limited? Maybe we should just embrace the fact that we have these capabilities.
http://news.ie.msn.com/world/article.aspx?cp-documentid=155564357
I think the information in a courtroom should stay private until decisions are final. If all different people are publicly posting things there could be issues with false information. Technology is good but it isnt always necessary because it may cause rumors.
ReplyDeleteI find it crazy how much technology enables us to do. Yes, it can be useful and beneficial, but I think in this case technology is only harmful. It is the reason why the wikileaks founder is in trouble in the first place. Technology exposes things that are meant to be private.
ReplyDelete