ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> Freedom to Differ

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

International Law

: Freedom to Differ

WSJ Law Blog: "Our Tech-Savvy Supreme Court"

ADVERTISEMENTS

The Supreme Court justices are a bright bunch. But chances are you?re not going to see them at next January?s CES show or ever watch them on a Web video demonstrating how to create apps for the iPhone.

That much was driven home, it seems, during today?s oral arguments in the case City of Ontario v. Quon.

The case examines whether a California police department violated the constitutional rights of an employee when it inspected personal text messages sent and received by a pager owned by the city of Ontario, Calif.

According to this post, at DC Dicta, the Court asked some questions of the lawyers which, well, the justices? kids and grandkids could have answered while sleepwalking.

According to the story, the first sign of trouble came was about midway through the argument, when Chief Justice John Roberts asked what the difference was ?between email and a pager?? (Cue sound of hard slap against forehead.)

At another point, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked what would happen if a text message was sent to an officer at the same time he was sending one to someone else.

?Does it say: ?Your call is important to us, and we will get back to you??? Kennedy asked. (Cue sound of louder slap against forehead.)

Justice Antonin Scalia stumbled getting his arms around with the idea of a service provider.

?You mean (the text) doesn?t go right to me?? he asked.

Then he asked whether they can be printed out in hard copy.

?Could Quon print these spicy little conversations and send them to his buddies?? Scalia asked.

Maybe the justices are against cameras in the court because when they think of cameras, they think of those huge cameras on tripods with the cloth to cover the photographers and the supernova flash-bulbs.

via blogs.wsj.com

Unfortunately I doubt the High Court of Australia would be much better.  Certainly when I worked at the Queensland Supreme Court, the level of technological know how amongst most of the judges was very limited indeed.  I posted a podcast on this topic last year, E-courts only work with e-judges and e-lawyers, that you can listen to here:

Full post as published by Freedom to Differ on April 20, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0025 secs (from cache 11/04/26 11:58:59)