Abstract
What happens when judges, in light of their role and responsibilities, and the scrutiny to which they are subjected, fall prey to a condition known as the “online disinhibition effect”? More importantly perhaps, what steps might judges reasonably take in order to pre-empt that fate, proactively addressing judicial social networking and its potential ramification for the administration of justice in the digital age? The immediate purpose of this article is to generate greater awareness of the issues specifically surrounding judicial social networking and to highlight some practical steps that those responsible for judicial training might consider in order to better equip judges for dealing with the exigencies of the digital realm. The focus is on understanding how to first recognize and then mitigate privacy and security risks in order to avoid bringing justice into disrepute through mishaps, and to stave off otherwise preventable incidents. This paper endeavors to provide a very brief overview of the emerging normative framework pertinent to the judicial use of social media, from a comparative perspective, concluding with some more practical (however preliminary) recommendations for more prudent and advised ESM use.
Highlights
U.S Circuit Judge Mike Maggio recently withdrew from the Court of Appeals race after admitting to “anonymously” posting blatantly racist and sexist comments online that he would have
The statements made by this hitherto respected jurist and magistrate are as shocking as they are disturbing, and can under the circumstances most plausibly be attributed to what the popular legal blog “Above the Law” labelled the “online disinhibition effect” [2]
The recent recognition of digital expression—in particular by way of social media—as constitutionally protected speech prompts courts to revisit their policies respecting judicial ESM. Those bodies that have elected to set out guidelines, preliminary, such as the American Bar Association (ABA), recognize the need for judges to immerse themselves in their community by way of virtual means inter alia
Summary
U.S Circuit Judge Mike Maggio recently withdrew from the Court of Appeals race after admitting to “anonymously” posting blatantly racist and sexist comments online that he would have. The statements made by this hitherto respected jurist and magistrate are as shocking as they are disturbing, and can under the circumstances most plausibly be attributed to what the popular legal blog “Above the Law” labelled the “online disinhibition effect” [2] It is loosely yet colorfully defined as “the condition that leads people otherwise aware of proper social and professional behavior to go off the rails and say things they would know not to broadcast publicly if the world could identify them” [2]. With an eye towards addressing the above [4,5,6,7,8] the immediate purpose of this article is to generate greater awareness of the issues surrounding judicial social networking and to highlight some practical steps that those responsible for judicial training might consider in order to better equip judges for dealing with the exigencies of the digital realm [9]. Among others, speaks resoundingly clear to the complexities and uncorrected snags related to the mechanisms currently in place for averting mishaps (most obviously nascent privacy settings)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
