Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

38 comments

EXACTLY the same! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753884)

When I need to know the latest REAL news, I ALWAYS trust Twitter!

Twitter
We Report, HOLY SHIT JUSTIN BIEBER IS TRENDING AGAIN!!!!1

Ink on paper? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753890)

Some argue that it's public shaming but isn't it the same as a newspaper reporting on local crime?

What's a newspaper?

monetize ? (0)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753898)

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?

Re:monetize ? (3, Informative)

Col. Klink (retired) (11632) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753912)

Newspapers are privately owned, too.

Re:monetize ? (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753944)

Because newspapers are not privately owned nor monetized? Are you an idiot?

Re:monetize ? (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#37757686)

Because newspapers are not privately owned nor monetized? Are you an idiot?

I think the difference is that the court is posting to twitter, rather than an employee of a newspaper reporting the information. Doesn't really matter much as long as the tweets don't replace some other kind of transparency process the court was using.

I could see some twitter competitor potentially suing the court for giving twitter an unfair advantage or something along those lines.

Re:monetize ? (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753956)

All they are posting are links to their own website. What is the problem?

Re:monetize ? (2)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754152)

really living up to your handle there, pal

Re:monetize ? (1)

IP_Troll (1097511) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754264)

Anything that makes court opinions more accessible is a good thing. Your concern about "privately owned services" is about 200 years too late and ignorant of the way court opinions are presently published.

The present system is WestLaw Lexis or another legal publishing company publishes decisions of note, i.e. only decision that change something in the law. Your average case is never published. You have to pay major money to get access to this material.

The courts do store decisions but in such a difficult way to access that it is not worth the effort. Are you going to go and wait in line for a civil service person to go and get the physical copy of the official court opinion, every time you want to see it? Imagine trying to get hundreds of documents from the DMV everyday. And then paying photocopying services because the official court document cannot leave the file storage room.

courts do store decisions but in a difficult way (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755036)

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.

Re:courts do store decisions but in a difficult wa (1)

glodime (1015179) | more than 2 years ago | (#37757328)

http://www.aopc.org/T/SupremeCourt/SupremePostings.htm [aopc.org]

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).

Re:courts do store decisions but in a difficult wa (1)

petman (619526) | more than 2 years ago | (#37758380)

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.

Re:courts do store decisions but in a difficult wa (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 2 years ago | (#37759208)

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 [supremecourt.gov.uk] , and they are typically up within a day or two. Why do other courts not do the same thing?

Re:courts do store decisions but in a difficult wa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37787284)

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.

links (2)

dkt5 (644128) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753904)

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.

It's public anyways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753936)

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)

Not only public, but hardly news (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 2 years ago | (#37758240)

If you don't want your name on a public record, don't do anything wrong to begin with!

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?)

This is a Supreme Court, not county. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753940)

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.

How About Secret Rulings? (1)

netsharc (195805) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753970)

Will they be also tweeting things like "the opinion of this court is not available to Public" [boingboing.net] ?

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...

Re:How About Secret Rulings? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754024)

I'm looking forward more to things like:

@victimsfamily Guilty! lol ;-) #lethimfry

Re:How About Secret Rulings? (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#37760980)

Will they be also tweeting things like "the opinion of this court is not available to Public" [boingboing.net] ?

... as a detainee in Guantanamo Bay, I don't find it unlikely that a court ruling (which go to great details explaining their ruling) could contain secret or top secret government information, and as such, in fully appropriate application of law, the opinion of a court concerning national security, and/or secret and top secret government information could totally be classified itself.

social media isn't for everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753972)

...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/

Re:social media isn't for everything (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37759658)

or perhaps an RSS feed served by their own web server under their control?

Yes, an RSS feed is the right answer. It would probably take 2 years to get set up in a government agency. Twitter feed was available by the secretary making an account.

Is broadcasting decisionthe job of the government? (0)

Snotman (767894) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754008)

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.

Re:Is broadcasting decisionthe job of the governme (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754036)

How is posting a link to their webpage "lambasting" someone?

Re:Is broadcasting decisionthe job of the governme (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754334)

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?

Supreme Courts Don't Do That (2, Interesting)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754028)

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.

Re:Supreme Courts Don't Do That (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755226)

Crap, my mod points just expired. Somebody?

Re:Supreme Courts Don't Do That (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37764300)

trust me, they very much care about the truth, besides, the supreme court isn't used for criminal retrial as much as it is for constitutional rights cases

Computerized ... (4, Insightful)

jc42 (318812) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754132)

... 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.

Re:Computerized ... (1)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754250)

Sometimes I think this about privacy and surveillance issues. People argue that a cop watching things on the street corner and a camera on the light post are totally different in every possible way, and the second is absolutely unacceptable.

Sometimes people get so carried away when technology is involved they ignore the underlying issue, about which they're actually right, and get so lost in techno-bashing that they just sound like Luddite freaks. When it comes to surveillance I don't give a shit about how they watch me, I care if I'm being watched. Are these people saying it's ok to simply hire a thousand cops to watch every street corner all the time or what?

Re:Computerized ... (1)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756186)

Sometimes I think this about privacy and surveillance issues. People argue that a cop watching things on the street corner and a camera on the light post are totally different in every possible way, and the second is absolutely unacceptable.

Actually, they ARE different in every possible way, unless the cop is wearing a camera, or the camera is armed and autonomously capable of making arrests.

If a cop's on the streetcorner, you know who's watching...

Re:Computerized ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754990)

Quick - someone go file a patent on the process of a public entity (the courts) using the internet to announce things they used to (and still do) say from the court bench or from the front steps. then we can fight that in East Texas....

Twitter? (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754200)

How do you explain a judgement in an SMS message?

I could see a Google+ or Facebook page for publishing rulings, but tweets?

Re:Twitter? (1)

xstonedogx (814876) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754418)

The summary is inaccurate. This is more like a twitter announcement service. Each post is a link to the actual court document hosted on their own website.

Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754436)

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 (1)

BetaDays (2355424) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754742)

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 [twitter.com] you have to follow the link to see what the information is all about.

Illinois has done this for a long time.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37756566)

The Supreme Court of Illinois: http://twitter.com/#!/illinoiscourts

There are listservs as well.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...