ASIM HUSSAIN BL-0586

Q1.
a.
Governments must regulate social networks.
Social networks have several dangers that require emergency and immediate
regulations, including online harassment. Racism, prejudice and divided content.
Terrorist for radicalization and right call. As with the exact use of social networks
for the political announcements of foreigners and national actors. To reduce these
social abuse, the needs of freedom and safety of citizens and security needs must
be implemented throughout the last development of cyber security.
The largest social networking company (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter) used this
empty media vacuum abruptly. According to the Pew Research Survey of 2018,
the 2 rooms of approximately 2 rooms obtain their news on social networks, with
Facebook represented 43 percent of 21 percent of YouTube content. For the benefit
of social networks and public interests in your book, Philip Napoli affirms that the
coder and engineers are editors, journalists and bays, as it will create and
disseminate the content of the media.
Safety is a free society basis and is based on the freedom to vote in a fair and free
environment. Nowadays, many Americans face the revelation of terrorists and
extremists to perform murders and Maim using revelations of foreign interference
or social networking platforms in domestic elections and sufficient safety is
insufficient. It is a powerful reason why the degree of freedom of social networks
must be limited by careful regulatory regulation carefully due to the size of the
social networks market, and the harmful purposes of the provision of news .. if not,
our society It is our reign of security, the address of our value system and the
sound function of our choice cycle, and an unlimited and unpredictable power, but
gives a healthy function to a malicious player interest.
b.
Social media has been used to promote "new" crimes such as revenge
pornography, prompting calls for harsher punishments. Additionally, the recent
Kim Kardashian robbery highlighted the ability of criminals to use social media
platforms to track potential victims (and their property).
In addition, “old” crimes such as harassment and threats, fraud and identity theft
are also committed in new ways through social media. Social media is also
changing the nature of post-criminal behavior. So-called performance crimes,
criminals bragging about their crimes to friends and followers online, are
becoming increasingly common. Finally, “undercover detectives” who are eager
to identify suspects often interfere with social media. At best, this can only distract
law enforcement officials. At worst, innocent people are wrongly accused.
For those working in the criminal justice system, social media trials have become
increasingly worrying. Activities on Facebook and Twitter may threaten the right
to prosecute and fair trial by sharing photos of the defendant before prosecution,
creating hate groups or jury sharing their thoughts on the prosecution online, etc. In
the Meagher case, Victoria Police used their Facebook page to inform the public
about the consequences of such violations. In addition, a magistrate imposed cyber
gimmicks on social networks to suppress information that could jeopardize the
trial.
Social media can also be used as a tool to blame victims, as happened after the
Kardashian robbery. After the incident, some Facebook and Twitter users
immediately argued that he received "what he deserves" and "maybe he will be
protected now." Social media can also be used as a weapon. Friends and family
members of crime victims may suffer secondary harm through this weapon.
Q2.
a.
It seems that almost every day there is a new app that allows you to "make friends"
or "connect" with someone, "follow" or "send a message" to someone. Finding and
pulling the moral line in an increasingly interconnected world can be tricky. This
challenge is particularly daunting when social media is in contact with judicial
personnel.
Just as lawyers are bound by professional codes of conduct, the behavior of
judicial personnel is also bound by judicial codes of conduct. The rules contained
in the code guide the conduct of judges, including their online presence.
The Model Code of Conduct for Attorneys in the United States stipulates that
judges must "always maintain the dignity of the judicial office." Judges must "hope
that their actions can guarantee the public's utmost confidence in their
independence, impartiality, integrity and ability at all times." Judges "must not
initiate, allow or consider unilateral communication ... regarding pending or
imminent matters." Judges must not engage in any activity that could result in
frequent disqualifications or that appears to undermine the justice of the judge.
These concepts are important to keep in mind when evaluating your social media
connections with the judiciary.
The ABA and some states recognize that simply "hooking up" or "making friends"
with someone may not imply an intimate relationship and therefore does not
endorse a blanket law department ban on communicating with attorneys on social
media. For example, the Ohio Supreme Court stated in Opinion 20107 (2010) that
"There is nothing in the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct that prohibits judges from
befriending attorneys, online or otherwise, with attorneys, including those who
appear before the judge ". On the contrary. , judges must consider your entire
relationship when determining whether your type of relationship with the attorney
should be disclosed or disqualified.
In contrast, several Florida Supreme Court judicial ethics advisory opinions have
found that judges may not have any contact on social media with attorneys who
may appear before them. These Florida opinions have determined that the judge
cannot "follow" or "like" the tweet, or it may not be a LinkedIn contact, or a
Facebook friend of the attorney who appeared in front of them. The California
Association of Judges proposed a middle ground in 2011, stipulating that judges
should not be "friends" with attorneys who appear before it, but allow online
relationships. Some states, like Arizona and Utah, have different regulations for
different types of social media.
Regarding whether it is ethical to communicate with judicial officials through
social networks, there are great differences from one state to another. Additionally,
many states have yet to provide guidance on this issue. As with most ethical issues,
be careful when communicating with judges through social media and understand
the rules in your state before doing so. However, while social media contacts with
judicial staff can be a moral quagmire, there is no reason why young attorneys
should not be able to establish relationships in person, via email, or handwritten
notes. In fact, you may find face-to-face conversations and written notes to be
more impressive than "making friends" with someone online.
Q2.
b.
However, if the judge's profile is not public, the lawyer should contact the judge
online to view his profile, this is where it gets tricky.
Judges have their own code of ethics, which goes beyond the code of ethics
applicable to all lawyers, the Model Code of Judicial Conduct (MCJC and its
specific variants of each state. Therefore, the problems of social networks that
involve judges go beyond the rules applicable to lawyers and involve another set of
rules. MCJC does not target social media, but some states have begun to formulate
rules that directly affect the interaction between judges and lawyers on social
media
Massachusetts and Oklahoma have similar regulations. California stated that
judges can participate in social media and contact lawyers in limited
circumstances, but if a lawyer appears before the judge, such online contact must
be disclosed. If the judge has a pending case, the judge needs to dismiss the
lawyer. Judge. Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, and South Carolina allow judges with
certain qualifications to use social media. New York seems to respect judges very
much, saying that as long as judges “obey the rules of judicial conduct” and
exercise an “appropriate degree of discretion” when using the Internet and keep
them up to date, they can appear on social media about how the characteristics of
social networks have changed And affect the duties of judges.
Given the progress of the ABA, it has become a reality that judges will appear on
social media. As lawyers, we must regulate our behavior so as not to violate the
rules of ethics and not appear inappropriate. Not being a friend on Facebook or
contacting a judge on LinkedIn may seem simple, but what if a friend or colleague
becomes a judge after you establish a connection? Or if you've been online in the
past, is disconnecting now a priority? Savannah Law School Professor Kelly Lynn
Anders discussed hostile ethics in her article "Ethical Exit: When Lawyers and
Judges Must Cut Social Media Connections" 7 Charleston Law Review 187.
Professor Anders explained that There is no guide on how to actually do it, but for
ethical considerations and general best practices, lawyers and judges should
communicate with each other before dissolving their friendship; a cost that seems
impossible to really happen Time task.
In light of the "misconduct" standards, the general lack of guidance in the rules,
and the hard-line stance taken by states like Florida, proceed with caution. If you
think someone looking at your interactions with bank members on social media
will find it inappropriate, then they should probably avoid it. Another way to think
about it is whether you would feel comfortable if your opposing lawyer has the
same connection as the online judge. If you don't like it, you shouldn't own it
either.