I’m actually a little surprised, though I shouldn’t be, that the courts are failing to realize how much jurors rely on the Internet.

Judges always tell jurors not to do any research and not to talk to anyone about the case. Thankfully, most of them are happy to go along with the suggestion that they get specific about this and go beyond the boilerplate of jury pre-instructions.  Most people don’t think of Google as “research” and don’t think of Twitter as “talking to anyone”. They have to be told: do not look up anything about this case, including the parties and the attorneys, on the Internet, and that includes Google and Wikipedia; do not blog about this trial, do not email people, do not Twitter or send text messages.

And you can see that they didn’t think of it that way, because the nods at “don’t do research” turn to surprise when the judge starts reeling off exactly what that means. I’ve actually seen one person kicked off a jury because he would not agree to refrain from looking things up on the Internet about the case. The judge’s explanation that all information had to come in during the trial did not sway him; he was annoyed that anyone might put a hold on his sacred right to Google for any reason.

If you hate the idea of jury service, imagine what it would be like to put in eight weeks of time, only to have it end in a mistrial because some bozo couldn’t find anything else to talk about on his Facebook page.

 

So in the wake of RaceFail 2009, John Scalzi rethinks his reflexive “no way am I putting my hand in THAT blender” position, and invites Mary Anne Mohanraj to write a guest blog post. Which she does in a thoughtful, kind, non-blaming, We Can Work It Out sort of way full of linky goodness.

And damn if the thread doesn’t immediately get clunked on by people who amaze you only by their ability to type with fingers jammed firmly in their ears, going OMFG U CALLED ME AN OPPRESSOR!! and “Racism? That’s so twentieth century, darling” and “But shouldn’t we wait for people of color to come to us before we acknowledge they have a role in SF?”

Oh Internets, just once, I would love you to surprise me.

 

Penny Arcade today pretty much sums up my opinion of the Amazon Kindle.

Mar 082009
 

Worth seeing; mild spoilers:

Continue reading »

YANAL

 Comments Off
Mar 072009
 

If you feel compelled to preface a discussion with “I’m not a lawyer, but…”, even in abbreviated form, chances are the next thing to come out of your mouth is going to be a horribly-manged misunderstanding and/or generalization of the law that will make anyone with a JD clutch their ears and howl in agony.

Then they will recover, and beat you viciously and without mercy. Rhetorically speaking.

It is true that many people who aren’t lawyers to have a clear understanding of certain areas of the law, and are even able to talk about it intelligently. Unfortunately those people are vastly outnumbered by other people, who think that Wikipedia is a real legal resource, or who take one line in a judicial opinion out of context and think that’s what the law is.

It is also true that the law is full of different specialities and lawyers have different levels of competency. I’m not familiar enough with patent law to explain its complexities to you, either at a cocktail party or on the Internet. Likewise, don’t tell me that you fully understand product-liability law in California because you heard about it from your dad, a retired lawyer who used to do criminal cases in Massachusetts.

And for god’s sake don’t present your half-baked legal expertise as legal advice to others.

© 2012 mythago Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha