"Twitter in Court” and “TV cameras in court” are topics that feature increasingly in mainstream media, media law modules in undergraduate and postgraduate law as well as journalism courses. From a British perspective, recent suggestions by the UK Government to make TV broadcasts of court proceedings a regular occurrence, the hitherto more flexible position in Scotland being well recognised, coupled with broadcasts of hearings from other jurisdictions, notably the United States, the demand for a comprehensive book on the subject has never been higher. There are also separate consultations and considerations in relation to whether and how Twitter may be permitted in courts. Paul Lambert’s book Courting Publicity: Twitter and Television Cameras in Court, written in an engaging and accessible style, goes a long way to meet this demand not only by an interested public and members of the legal profession but also by academics and students of varying subjects. The book provides in-depth background as well as specific consideration of an array of jurisdictions, and the argument for further empirical research to underpin or deconstruct the justifications to make court proceedings more open by means of Twitter in court and TV broadcasts is made strongly and convincingly.
Thorsten Lauterbach, Law Lecturer,Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen
Hot on the heels of the super-injunction spring of 2011, Courting Publicity: Twitter and Television Cameras in Court seeks to inform the debate on what role social media and television reporting should play within the judicial system. Aimed at legal professionals, policymakers and members of the media this accessible and well-considered book highlights the urgent need for empirical research into the effect of the increasing use of social media, and of court television reporting.
The UK courts system is the focus of Courting Publicity but the US, where TV court reporting is more common, is also considered in some detail. Lambert argues that the democratisation of court reporting - either through social media or via television coverage - opens up opportunities. But if managed incorrectly, he says, it could undermine the courts’ core function: the administration of justice.
As the title suggests, Twitter features heavily. No surprise, considering the phenomenal impact that the social media website has had on the legal system (as well as societies around the world). Lambert does not restrict his musings to the headline tale of Giggs-gate but considers the wide range of consequences that increasing use of social media may have on the legal system. Discussion covers both the difficulties posed by Twitter - from the near impossibility of accurately reporting complex points of law in 140 characters to questions surrounding enforceability of court orders - and the ways in which the courts may benefit from the invention; the courts in England and Wales have, for example he explains, utilised tweets both for evidential purposes and as a method of serving court orders.
Once the topic of social media has been thoroughly put through its paces, Lambert deliberates over the next step on the road of accessibility and transparency - the advisability of television reporting in courts. He questions whether filming courtroom proceedings would have the desired educational and informative effect or whether, as commentators have argued, the public’s interest is only likely to be sparked by cases with salacious or horrific content. In the US, court TV shows are often scheduled to run concurrently with daytime soaps suggesting real - and live - drama is a popular alternative to fiction - but leading to the potentially worrying question whether the public can distinguish between the two...
