Tweets and the SCORK

For the highest court in the land…

A court commissioned to guard executive excesses… excesses of men who command the nation’s instruments of violence.

For the bench of that court to act threatened by tweets from ordinary lawyers isn’t very encouraging.

How do you guard against a man with executive power and great social influence when tweets threaten you?

People tweet against presidents, mps, senators, and ordinary citizens.

Why does the court seek special treatment???!!!

A functional democracy demands that you say what you want, and bear to hear what you don’t.

Anyhooooo… solid jurisprudence.

It is unethical to comment on matters still under determination. In some countries it is even criminal - moreso if the comments are highly opinionated, disparaging, and by a participanting advocate no less.

You misunderstand…

Not all speech around matters under determination is gagged… that’s why no judge dares find them in contempt.

Lawyers always talk to the press, as long as they don’t divulge anything still privy only to the court.

People always talk about cases in determination. We have entire panels on TV giving their opinions on such matters.

The idea that we should be totally silent on matters in determination is actually quite foreign to British Common Law

Splendid law

How is it unethical?