- Journal Archives
- Volume 19
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
In recent years, the judicial system has struggled to strike the proper balance between free speech and a fair trial in a world where social media is ever-pervasive. In just the last year, John Craven noted that juror tweets have caused numerous mistrials, Marina Visan reported that Facebook “likes” are not protected by the First Amendment, and guest blogger and attorney James P. Goslee discussed whether discovery can reach information posted on Facebook profiles. Last week, another judge addressed yet another issue with regard to a different type of social media: the blog.
When Dr. Linda Cheek was accused of prescribing pain medication illegally, she took to her blog to begin her defense. She accused the government of collusion and of treating her like a Colombian drug lord. In response to Dr. Cheek’s inflammatory remarks, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia requested a gag order on the defendant, seeking a prohibition on “internet blogging, tweeting and otherwise public communication about her trial.” Judge Glen Conrad rejected the prosecutor’s motion, citing the defendant’s First Amendment right to free speech as support.
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog covered the issue on February 6. Intrigued by the balance of free speech and a fair trial, WSJ turned to Ken Paulson, President and CEO of the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt, for some answers. Paulson explained that while the judge has the duty of ensuring a fair jury trial, he also must be rather deferential to the defendant’s free speech rights. While the circuit courts are split on the proper standard to apply, gag orders are generally only issued when the defendant’s speech is so inflammatory and/or untrue that it will create either (a) a clear and present danger of an unfair trial, or (b) a substantial likelihood of an unfair trial.
It will likely remain unclear what the proper standard is until the U.S. Supreme Court takes a case. Until then, defendants will walk a fine line between defending themselves in the “court of public opinion” and inciting the public so egregiously as to cause a mistrial.
– Erin Reimer
Recent Blog Posts
- EPA Issues 2017 Renewable Fuel Targets Amid RINs Market’s Uncertain Future
- Cell Phone Firmware Avoids Anti-virus Scans, Sends Private Data to China
- The Consumer Review Fairness Act: Protecting Consumers Who Post Negative Reviews On The Internet
- Google Fiber Nashville Litigation
- Brexit and the Future of UK Sports
- The U.S. is Losing the Economic Drone War
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution