Erin contacted me after my article on Judge Truglia with another shocking Connecticut case.
CALIFORNIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION
Judicial Ethics Committee
Opinion No. 78
ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKING II
THE ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF WRITING ONLINE REVIEWS
AND OF USING THE LIKE FUNCTION ON SOCIAL NETWORK
PLATFORMS
The commentary to Canon 2A states:
“A judge must exercise caution when engaging in any type of electronic communication,
including communication by text or email, or when participating
in online social networking sites or otherwise posting material on the Internet,
given the accessibility, widespread transmission, and permanence of electronic
communications and material posted on the Internet. The same canons that
govern a judge’s ability to socialize and communicate in person, on paper, or
over the telephone apply to electronic communications, including use of the Internet
and social networking sites. These canons include, but are not limited to,
Canons 2B(2) (lending the prestige of judicial office), 3B(7) (ex parte communications),
3B(9) (public comment about pending* or impending proceedings*),
3E(2) (disclosure of information relevant to disqualification), and 4A (conducting
extrajudicial activities to avoid casting doubt on the judge’s capacity to act
impartially,* demeaning the judicial office, or frequent disqualification)”.
This opinion will focus on the application of the Code of Judicial Ethics to certain
common online activities: 1) contributing to crowdsourced sites, such as
Yelp and Trip Advisor, and 2) “liking” sites, pages or other’s posts on social
networking and messaging sites. To analyze how the rules of judicial ethics
may apply in a given context, it is imperative to understand the footprint left
by using the site in a given manner. In other words, whether any ethical rules
are implicated depends on what others will be able to see because of the judge’s
actions on the site and who will be able to see it. The examples in this opinion
CALIFORNIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION
Judicial Ethics Committee
Opinion No. 78
ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKING II
THE ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF WRITING ONLINE REVIEWS
AND OF USING THE LIKE FUNCTION ON SOCIAL NETWORK
PLATFORMS
The commentary to Canon 2A states:
“A judge must exercise caution when engaging in any type of electronic communication,
including communication by text or email, or when participating
in online social networking sites or otherwise posting material on the Internet,
given the accessibility, widespread transmission, and permanence of electronic
communications and material posted on the Internet. The same canons that
govern a judge’s ability to socialize and communicate in person, on paper, or
over the telephone apply to electronic communications, including use of the Internet
and social networking sites. These canons include, but are not limited to,
Canons 2B(2) (lending the prestige of judicial office), 3B(7) (ex parte communications),
3B(9) (public comment about pending* or impending proceedings*),
3E(2) (disclosure of information relevant to disqualification), and 4A (conducting
extrajudicial activities to avoid casting doubt on the judge’s capacity to act
impartially,* demeaning the judicial office, or frequent disqualification)”.
This opinion will focus on the application of the Code of Judicial Ethics to certain
common online activities: 1) contributing to crowdsourced sites, such as
Yelp and Trip Advisor, and 2) “liking” sites, pages or other’s posts on social
networking and messaging sites. To analyze how the rules of judicial ethics
may apply in a given context, it is imperative to understand the footprint left
by using the site in a given manner. In other words, whether any ethical rules
are implicated depends on what others will be able to see because of the judge’s
actions on the site and who will be able to see it. The examples in this opinion