The law forbidding men to work in female apparel and cosmetic stores was first proposed in 2006, but has never been pushed through, largely due to disapproval from the country’s top hard-liner clerics. The clerics are opposed to women working in places where men and women congregate together, like malls. Frightful stuff, I know.

The decision to finally enforce the law is, in fact, largely down to female consumers. As women grew tired of dealing with men in lingerie outlets, more and more boycotted such stores. Now, the government has backed down, and the new law goes into effect Thursday.

Saudi Arabia’s famously ultra-conservative law is enforced by police who are under the control of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. The body is responsible for ensuring Saudi Arabia’s strict interpretation of Islam is observed in day-to-day life. The Saudi law ensures men and women are highly segregated, with unrelated men and women prohibited from mingling in many walks of life.

Exceptions do occur, however. Saudi Arabian women hold positions as doctors, nurses, university lecturers and engineers, though these are rare examples.

Alas, thousands of men are set to lose their jobs in the stores, with the Saudi Labor Ministry confirming over 28,000 women have already applied for the positions.

And of course, not everybody is particularly pleased about women having the temerity to show their faces in public. Here’s Saudi’s Arabia’s most senior cleric, Sheik Abdul-Aziz Al Sheikh, on the matter:

“The employment of women in stores that sell female apparel and a woman standing face to face with a man selling to him without modesty or shame can lead to wrongdoing, of which the burden of this will fall on the owners of the stores.”

Saudi Arabia to Pass Lingerie Law is a post from: The Inquisitr

Common sense to be something in real short supply these days as one new study out shows that more people are texting while they are driving despite concerted efforts from law enforcement and other organizations to show how dangerous this practice is.

According to new data from the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the number of people ‘caught’ texting while driving has jumped from 0.6% in 2009 to 0.9% in 2010. This increase has been reflected in the number of accidents related to texting while driving which came in at around the 3,000 mark.

The NHTSA says that they expect to see an increase of 2,300% in the number of accidents due to texting while driving which is why they have led the call for the ban of all texting while driving.

“Using a cell phone while driving is the equivalent of having a blood alcohol concentration level of .08%, the legal limit in most states,” the NHTSA said in a statement. “Using a cell phone can reduce the brain activity associated with driving by 37%.”

via TechnoBuffalo

It should also be noted that in July a Governors Highway Association study found that up to 25% of car crashes in the US is associated with drivers being distracted by some sort of gadget.

Personally I think that anyone caught texting while driving should have their license taken away from them for a number of years equal to the number of words in the last text they sent or read while driving. Texting is the new DUI and can kill just as easily.

image courtesy of TechnoBuffalo

New study says texting while driving on the rise is a post from: The Inquisitr

The sons of James, Donto and Sametto, have been battling James’ husband Artis Mills over the amount of money available to Mills for the expenses and care of the singer. The sons wanted to cap expenses at $100,000. Mills felt $500,000 was more necessary. A Riverside County judge went close to going down the middle, ordering expenses to be capped at $350,000.

The recording star, famous for songs such as At Last and Tell Mama, is suffering from incurable leukemia, dementia and kidney failure for several years now. According to E!, she now struggles to simply communicate.

Outside the courtroom where James, James, and Mills has crossed swords, the singer’s personal physician Dr. Elaine James stated:

“I am Southern and Christian and would just ask for the prayers of her fans and friends. They know she’s been sick, but not how sick.”

Dr. James (not a relative) has looked after the 73-year-old at her home since March 2010. She receives a salary of $30,000 per month for her live-in care services, a figure settled on in previous court hearings.

Below is a clip of Etta James singing in happier times. While her illnesses may not be curable, let’s hope she’s being looked after. And here she is telling Beyonce who’s boss.

Etta James’ Estate: Court Deal Reached by Sons and Stepfather is a post from: The Inquisitr

It’s a legal conundrum, in other words, but since 1996 federal agencies and authorities have long turned a blind eye to the practice of growing medical marijuana in the Golden State (while continuing to target those who make illegal profits in the name of medicine, or who smuggle marijuana across state lines).  The growth of marijuana for medical purposes has become a billion-dollar industry, with Californian growers and dispensaries leading the way.

Recently however, more and more growers in the state are reporting raids by federal authorities – even those regarded by local officials as law-abiding. Threats to seize property have suddenly rocketed.

In turn, this has hurt the state-authorized industry, especially after the Internal Revenue Service introduced hefty (and widely disputed) tax charges against the state’s largest dispensary, which is now facing a fight for its future.

This follows an October 7 announcement from four United States attorneys of a new, tougher campaign against medical marijuana dispensaries. Kamala D. Harris, attorney general of California, describes the effect of the new campaign:

“It was a unilateral federal action, and it has only increased uncertainty about how Californians can legitimately comply with state law,” Ms. Harris said in an interview. Since federal authorities do not recognize that marijuana can serve medical ends, she said, “they are ill equipped to be the decision makers as to which providers are violating the law.”

Industry leaders warn the intensifying federal pressure on the industry could seriously affect the cooperatives that provide medical marijuana. In turn, that could mean greater suffering the 750,000 Californians who have obtained doctor “recommendations” to use marijuana for everything from cancer-related nausea to pain and anxiety.

Where do you stand on the use of marijuana for medical purposes?

Medical Marijuana in California Targeted by the Feds is a post from: The Inquisitr

28-year-old Joshua Monson has found out the hard way that stabbing lawyers is frowned upon in a courtroom. Who knew?

Monson is currently appearing in court on charges of methamphetamine possession, and has just lost his right to a lawyer. The reason? He’s stabbed not one, not two, but three of his own attorneys.

Thankfully, all of the stabbings were carried out with pens or pencils, meaning no deaths or serious injuries have ensued. But the stabbings did result in Monson being held down by leather restraints, and fitted with an electric-shocking device. And now, he’s lost his lawyers. In short, he has nothing left to stab.

Attorney Jesse Cantor was the third and final victim of Monson. The defendant managed to grab Cantor’s own pen while the prosecution was arguing its case, and stabbed him in the side of the head with it. The Herald reports:

“Witnesses reported seeing Monson reach across the table, grab the pen and stab Cantor in the left side of the head. Cantor was not seriously injured.

The incident happened as jurors were listening to a prosecutor’s opening statements.”

Apparently that was enough for the judge, who had previously banned Monson from bringing writing implements to the courtroom. Now, the stab-happy Monson will have to defend himself.

[Via The Herald]

Man Loses Right To A Lawyer is a post from: The Inquisitr

I’ve read about a lot of really stupid ideas in my time but this one from the halls of the Louisiana state government has to rank up there as one of the most ridiculous idea yet.

Proclaiming the law as a way to help law enforcement fight the sale of stolen goods Louisiana has decided to make the ability to pay cash for second-hand goods illegal.

Yes you read that right. It is now illegal in the state of Louisiana to use a piece of paper that is clearly stamped “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” (as well as “In God We Trust”) to buy second-hand merchandise.

State representative Rickey Hardy, co-author of the bill, says that the bill is targeted at criminals who steal anything from copper to televisions and then sell them to make a quick buck. The idea is that by forcing a paper trail the police will have an easier time tracking down offenders.

Here is the section of the bill that deals with this, and that was buried so deep in the re-written bill that most businesses don’t even know the law exists.

A secondhand dealer shall not enter into any cash transactions in payment for the purchase of junk or used or secondhand property. Payment shall be made in the form of check, electronic transfers, or money order issued to the seller of the junk or used or secondhand property and made payable to the name and address of the seller. All payments made by check, electronic transfers, or money order shall be reported separately in the daily reports required by R.S. 37:1866.

I’m wondering how long it will be before this is challenged in courts. Hopefully not long but in the meantime Techdirt has the full text of the bill available as an embed in case you are interested.

via KLFY.com

It is now illegal to use cash in Louisiana to buy second-hand goods is a post from: The Inquisitr

It is being billed as one of the biggest fraud and identity theft rings ever busted in New York, with over 100 people arrested, 85 currently in custody, and with others still being sought.

In total five separate criminal enterprises that were operating out of Queens were busted up resulting in hundreds of charges including identity theft, enterprise corruption, theft and grand larceny.

The ring had been in operation from at least 2010 and included employees at restaurants, at least one bank, a retail stores. These employees would steal the credit card numbers of customers and pass them along up the chain. Additionally members of the ring would steal card information online.

The collected numbers were then given to teams of card and information manufacturers who would then forge various credit cards as well as other realistic identifications. These cards and ids would then be handed out to teams of “shoppers” would go on spending sprees at higher-end stores like Apple, Macy’s, and Bloomingdales.

From what authorities have been able to piece together these shopping gangs bought over $13 million on goods like iPads, iPhones, computers, high-end clothing and accessories which where then sent overseas to places like China and Europe to be sold.

As one of the detectives involved in the investigation said – these thieves have an incredible knowledge when it comes to the technology used these days and that the schemes and imagination being developed these days to pull off operations like this is “mind-boggling”.

via Forbes.

More than 100 arrested in NYC identity theft ring is a post from: The Inquisitr

Domestic violence is a blight on our society and it took years for dealing with it beyond the old “it’s a family matter” mindset and bring it out into the open where finally abusers can be held accountable but it seems that Topeka, Kansas, thinks that it shouldn’t be a criminal matter.

This idea of decriminalizing domestic violence came to light during a recent city council meeting where the city council was trying to figure out ways to balance their city expenditures and the subject regarding this idea was put forth.

The idea came about in the fall out of a decision by the Shawnee Country District Attorney’s office that due to a 10% budgetary cut to the office that the district attorney’s office would no longer be prosecuting misdemeanors, which includes domestic violence.

The YMCA in Topeka said following this decision that some of the survivors of domestic violence were no afraid for their safety.

City leaders, and the district attorney, all agree that domestic violence is wrong and that it shouldn’t be tolerated but the simple fact is that there isn’t enough money to take these types of misdemeanors to trial.

The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence reports that one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence in the U.S. and the health related costs of this type of abuse exceeds $5.8 billion a year.

via Think Progress

Topeka to consider decriminalizing domestic violence to save money is a post from: The Inquisitr

I can totally understand the need for things like laws against cyber-bulling or stalking but as one 15-year-old-boy in Rhode Island is finding out the simple act of sending a message over the web to a 16-year-old girl that makes her feel uncomfortable can end up with you facing domestic violence charges.

So now the simple act of making someone uncomfortable can find you in court and possibly in jail.

Police say the 15-year-old Barrington boy met a 16-year-old girl while taking classes this summer and they started to talk through Facebook.

But police say the 16-year-old felt uncomfortable when the messages started getting inappropriate.

Police started the investigation in July and now they’ve charged the minor with cyber stalking, which is now punishable under the domestic violence prevention act.

via WPRI.com

I hate to point out that being uncomfortable is a constant of teenage life and when you add in puberty and the hormone wars that are going on it can lead to some strange things being said; but being charged for domestic violence?

Isn’t that going just a tad too far?

Even the originator of the Rhode Island law didn’t see her law being used like this.

Making someone “uncomfortable” online could get you charged with domestic violence is a post from: The Inquisitr

Spreading margarine on a piece of bread in Wisconsin can cost a restaurant owner up to $500 and three months in jail. The very old old law requires that margarine only be substituted for butter at a customers request and while it’s rarely enforced it can still cost anywhere from $100 to $500 when action is taken and that’s why 12 lawmakers are attempting to have the law repealed.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the law is based in the late 1800s when margarine scams saw the substance being colored to look like butter creating an “oleo black market.”

On a more personal level the butter law supports dairy farmers in the state, Wisconsin is the No. 2 butter producer in the United States.

While the margarine ban was lifted in 1967 the substitution of margarine for butter remained on the books.

Rep. Dale Kooyenga told the Sentinel it’s:

“Silly, antiquated, and anti-free market.”

Kooyenga explains that serving margarine to prisoners instead of butter would amount to 3-times savings.

One diary farmer explains that butter is only twice the price, adding:.

“Everybody should eat butter—prisoners and school children included. I’m not going to say everybody must have butter. Everybody should have a choice.”

Who knew butter could have such an impact on everyone from restaurant visitors to prisoners. Do you believe this antiquated law should be taken off the books? With Wisconsin slashing public worker wages a cheaper alternative in that state probably wouldn’t be a horrible idea.

Margarine Law Spread Thin In Wisconsin, Could Be Repealed is a post from: The Inquisitr

One of the benefits of our rapidly improving technology is that it puts ways to easily record events and the people involved in them in the hands of the average citizen. While some see this as a good thing and an equalizer of power there are others that are really afraid of that kind of accountability that results from being easily recorded.

It has gotten to the point where police and others in power are trying to convince us that turning this lens or microphone of accountability on those in power is a bad thing and should be illegal. Photographers are constantly having to remind police of their constitutional rights to be able to document events. People are having to go to court to fight charges by the police for recording what these public servants are doing.

Now we have Judge Richard A, Posner of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit who thinks that all this recording by citizens of the police will lead to more snooping around by reporters and bloggers.

At the heart of this is the motion from the ACLU to strike down a particularly offensive law in Illinois that makes it illegal to record someone without their consent, even though the recording is done openly and in a public place.

He [Judge Posner] was particularly worried that allowing recording would impact police work. “I’m always suspicious when the civil liberties people start telling the police how to do their business,” he said. He speculated that gangs would love the ACLU’s argument because recordings would make it easier to discover and retaliate against informants.

via Ars Technica

Luckily for us Posner’s fellow judges don’t feel the same way and appear to be being swayed by the ACLU arguments.

Both of Posner’s fellow Seventh Circuit judges seemed more receptive to the ACLU’s argument. They reserved most of their fire for the government’s attorney. “The statute criminalizes any audiotaping without regard to expectations of privacy, even if those events that are being audiotaped occur in the open, in public, for anyone to see and hear and otherwise observe,” one of the judges said. “It’s extremely broad.”

via Ars Technica

Finally, a little bit of sanity.

Recording police will lead to “excessive snooping” says Judge is a post from: The Inquisitr

Back in January and April of this year my colleague Kim LaCapria  and I wrote here about a growing trend of state courts what amounts to carte blanche in accessing your mobile phone location data from your provider without the need of a warrant.

First it was California where the California Supreme Court agreed:

“The majority opinion, written by Justice Ming Chin, cited precedents from the U.S. Supreme Court, saying the contents of a cell phone are like the contents of clothing or a cigarette pack found on a suspect’s person. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that those types of searches do not require a warrant under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the court said.”

Then along comes April and Kim relates the fact that Michigan State police have the ability using a technology from CelleBrite to make a duplicate of your cellphone contents without the need of a warrant. In her post Kim quotes the ACLU stance on this.

“With certain exceptions that do not apply here, a search cannot occur without a warrant in which a judicial officer determines that there is probable cause to believe that the search will yield evidence of criminal activity,” Fancher wrote. “A device that allows immediate, surreptitious intrusion into private data creates enormous risks that troopers will ignore these requirements to the detriment of the constitutional rights of persons whose cell phones are searched.”

One of the arguments against the police being able to do this is that their actions could violate our Fourth Amendment rights; and for the most part the courts have sided with the police and saying it doesn’t.

However on Monday Judge Nicholas Garaufis, of the Eastern District of New York totally rejected this line of reasoning.

The federal government had asked the courts to order Verizon Wireless to turn over 113 days of location data about a suspect’s cell phone. It did so under a provision of the Stored Communications Act that only requires law enforcement to show that the records are “relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”

Does the government violate the Constitution when it obtains location data without meeting the Fourth Amendment’s “probable cause” standard? Some courts have found that it does not. But in a 22-page opinion, Judge Garaufis analyzed and rejected these other courts’ arguments, holding that law enforcement needs a warrant to obtain months of location data.

“The fiction that the vast majority of the American population consents to warrantless government access to the records of a significant share of their movements by ‘choosing’ to carry a cell phone must be rejected,” he wrote. “In light of drastic developments in technology, the Fourth Amendment doctrine must evolve to preserve cell-phone user’s reasonable expectation of privacy in cumulative cell-site-location records.”

via Ars Technica

It’s nice to see that like the judge in Ohio we have a Federal judge who is forward thinking enough to know that technology is a rapidly changing landscape and our interpretations of the Constitution need to be constantly adjusted to keep up with the changes.

That whole no warrant needed for your mobile phone location info – not so fast says Federal Court is a post from: The Inquisitr

Outrage, anger, confusion, while Casey Anthony’s not guilty verdict has left many people feeling slated, some good may come from the verdict as thousands of people have signed a petition for “Caylee’s Law” which would require parents and guardians to report their child’s disappearance immediately after it occurs.

The petition for a change is law comes after Caylee Anthony was missing for a full month before her mother Casey reported her missing.

Crowder who was behind the Change.org petition and a Facebook page supporting the same cause has asked Congress to create the law which would charge parents with child neglect or endangerment, or even obstruction of justice.

The Change.org petition is the fastest-growing campaign in site history with more than 2,000 people signing the document every hour.

Thousands Sign Caylee’s Law Petition is a post from: The Inquisitr

For some time there has been an effort by politicians looking for easy votes to ban or rent games that are deemed to be violent to anyone under the age of 18, with the most recent effort being by the State of California.

As expected this law was challenged in the courts with it making it all the way to the Supreme Court where the matter was settled once and for all, well at least for this round until someone tries to introduce a newer version of the same old crap.

While it may not have surprised many the fact that the decision that video games are protected as free speech the number of judges in favor might be a little bit of a surprise.

The final count – 5 for and only 2 against.

Judge Scalia and four supporting judges determined that games, like books, movies, and plays, get a message across through “fammiliar literary devices” and can’t be censored solely because it contained violence.

“The most basic principle — that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content… is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words,” the ruling says. “But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test.”

Since the US didn’t stop kids from seeing violence in movies or other formats, the state’s argument that gaming was somehow different was “unpersuasive,” according to the court.

via electronista

As good as it is to see this you can be sure that it won’t be long before some politician tries this stupidity again.

Gamers rejoice, Supreme Courts says video games protected under 1st Amendment is a post from: The Inquisitr

Officials in the city of San Francisco are considering a ban on the sale of goldfish. City officials worry that animal welfare is put in jeopardy since most goldfish are mass bred or “taken from the wild.”

A member of the city’s welfare panel told the San Francisco Chronicle that the breeding and acquisition of the fish results in ”devastation of tropical fish from places like Southeast Asia.”

The idea of banning the fish is not a new train of thought, the city has underwent a year long review although one supervisor notes:

“This is another Animal Welfare idea that will end up in the dustbin of history and go absolutely nowhere,” says a supervisor, perhaps referring to a previous plan to spike bird food with birth control to help the city’s pigeon problem. But “all this is, is a recommendation.”

The city’s Board of Supervisors have final say in whether the law is passed.

San Francisco Considers Banning Goldfish Sales is a post from: The Inquisitr

We’ve all heard the stories of people convicted on crimes where the evidence included things like their Google searches or their Facebook posting but in order to get that Facebook information the police first need to subpoena Facebook.

It apparently is pretty easy to do with a simple form that includes your Facebook email address, user ID or username. Then when Facebook has that form they will create an archive for the police to go through.

So what does that archive contain?

Well thanks to Matthew Panzarino at The Next Web we now have a good idea of what the police will be receiving.

• User ID number
• Email address
• Date and Time of your account’s creation
• The most recent logins, usually the last 2-3 days
• Your phone number, if you registered it
• Profile contact info
• Mini-feed
• Status update history
• Shares
• Notes
• Wall posts
• Friends list
• Groups list
• Future and past events
• Videos
• Photos
• Private messages
• IP logs (computers and locations you logged in from)

In other words just about everything you have done on Facebook is in the hands of the police, oh and as an extra bonus they get a complete list of your friends.

Apparently Facebook doesn’t put up much of a protest either.

What Do The Police Actually Get When They Subpoena Your Facebook Account? is a post from: The Inquisitr

South Tyneside Council in the UK has subpoenaed Twitter to hand over the two accounts, one public and one private, for fellow councillor Ahmed Khan. The council claims that Khan is the anonymous blogger known as Mr. Monkey who they claim has been making false accusations about the council.

Last night, the Chronicle revealed how South Tyneside Council launched a two-year legal battle attempting to unmask the person who runs the “Mr Monkey” blog.

The blog claims to “expose” what goes on behind the scenes at the authority, and has levelled many unfounded accusations at council leader Iain Malcolm and other councillors and council officers.

Now Coun Ahmed Khan, deputy leader of the Independent Alliance, is the subject of a subpoena which the council has issued to Twitter. The social network site must hand over all the personal details of his two accounts, his personal one and councillor account.

It means the plaintiffs will be able to access private messages sent to his accounts, which Coun Khan claims raises “serious privacy issues”.

via ChronicleLive.co.uk

There is no word yet if Twitter will comply but I think chances are they will comply.

A UK City Council Orders Twitter To Hand Over Politician’s Accounts is a post from: The Inquisitr

Picking juries is tough and there are companies out there making lots of money as jury consultants to lawyers. Then there is the increasing number of problems being faced by the courts over jury members disobeying judges as they Twitter comments while paneled or researching the case on Google.

There is no denying that the Internet and social media is having an effect on the justice system but know it seems that trial lawyers are turning to Facebook when selecting jury members.

While some countries simply select a jury at random and only excuse members if they have a direct link to the case, the US uses a jury selection process. This involves lawyers questioning a pool of potential jurors, with each side having the right to reject a certain number with (in most cases) no reason required. The idea is to allow both sides the opportunity to eliminate jurors who might be particularly biased against their case.

The Facebook research doesn’t seem to be as much about bias as looking for particular personality types. For example, if a potential juror comes across online as an aggressive personality with strong opinions, they could dominate the jury deliberations. That might make the outcome more unpredictable, which makes the person a bad pick for a side that feels confident it has the evidence on its side.

There are some more specific reasons for concern. A defense lawyer might look out for somebody who notes on their profile that they are a keen fan of crime procedural shows such as CSI: such jurors may place too much weight on the reliability of DNA evidence (and the fact that it does a much more reliable job of discounting a link than it does proving one.)

via Geeks are Sexy

What do you think? Should things like Facebook and other social media tools be banned from the legal court system?

Jury selection gets the Facebook treatment is a post from: The Inquisitr

There has never been any doubt that when you walk into a store and plonk down your money, then walk out with your purchase you can do anything you want with it. You don’t have to ask the store where you bought the item. You don’t have to ask the company that manufactured the item, and you don’t have to ask permission from the person who might have created the item in the first place.

This is because all physical goods fall under what is commonly referred to as first-rights doctrine which means you buy it and you can do what you want with it.

As much as we might want to believe that this applies to everything we buy the reality is that nothing could be further from the truth. We don’t and especially so with it comes to electronic goods like e-books, software, videos, or music.

This is something that I have mentioned many time before but it is sometimes hard to convince people that this is indeed the case. You don’t own the goods – you ‘own’ a bunch of legalese that can change at any time.

Ed Bott over at ZDNet’s Microsoft Report has an excellent post that breaks down and looks at the legalities of iTunes, Amazon, and eMusic when it comes to your rights when you buy music from their services.

If you buy a digital album from an online service such as the iTunes store, Amazon MP3, or eMusic, you have no legal right to lend that album to a friend, as you could if you had purchased a CD. If you decide after a few listens that you hate the album, well, tough. You can’t resell it. You can’t even legally give it away.

When it comes to software things become even more convoluted. Over at WinExtra I wrote a post about this back in November of 2009 where I talked about this:

The problem is that those EULAs are sneaky and on more than one occasion they have been found to contain more than one type of gotcha. With the exception of a rare breed of computer users who do indeed examine each and every EULA of every piece of software they install most of us just click on I Agree and carry on our merry way. It is only later we find out that maybe we should have read that EULA after all.

In this case however, unlike with things like music, books or movies, this post was about a piece of software you can download that will scan those nasty EULA that we never read. The point was, like Ed’s, that we are very quickly becoming a world were owning something is becoming a figment of our imagination.

If you don’t think so take a moment and read Ed’s post and as he says at the end:

The moral of the story? If you really want to own your music, forget about downloading and buy a CD. You might even save some money compared to a digital download.

Never has caveat emptor meant more.

So, You think you own that software, book, or movie you downloaded eh. Think again. is a post from: The Inquisitr

This is an interesting move and guidance by the Lord Chief Justice of England when it comes to the use of Twitter during active court proceedings. Media organizations and journalists will first have to apply for permission to use social media tools, like Twitter, on a case-by-case basis; however non-journalists may be barred its use to prevent possible distractions and limit interference with the courts’ own recording equipment.

Judge issued interim guidance on the use of social media, pending a public consultation involving the judiciary, prosecutors, lawyers, the media and “interested members of the public”. The guidance applies only to courts in England and Wales.

It follows a district judge’s decision to allow the tweeting of a bail hearing for Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks chief, earlier this month. Assange faces extradition to Sweden over allegations of rape, molestation and unlawful coercion.

Lord Judge had already been considering the issue, which he highlighted at a lecture in Belfast last month.Under the guidance, anyone wanting to tweet from a courtroom will first need the permission of the judge, who will consider the risk posed to justice.

This would be at its highest in criminal trials where witnesses who are out of court would be able to find out what has already happened.

via Guardian

England’s Lord Chief Justice says reporter twittering in court is okay is a post from: The Inquisitr