Prompt's TechBlog
Do judges understand the internet?
18 May 2007
Posted by Sean McManus
The papers are scoffing at a judge who asked what a website was in the middle of a trial about alleged terrorism offences. The Register reports that the judge said: "I don't really understand what a website is... I haven't quite grasped the concepts... We've got to start from basics."
"How absurd," journalists say, "that a judge who's on a case about the internet doesn't even know what it is!"
It's possible Judge Peter Openshaw has never used the internet. That certainly fits with the stereotype of judges as fusty old men, saying 'eh?' and holding an ear trumpet.
It's much more likely, though, that he was pressing for a definition that would stand up in law. There is the famous case of a judge who is said to have asked who the Beatles were in court. It wasn't because he had never heard of them - it was because he needed a clear definition for the avoidance of any doubt later on. You can imagine the mess a case can get in if you start talking about a group of people, but don't define who's in it.
Everybody uses websites, but I'd be surprised if most people could give a robust definition of what one is. It's the judge's job to make sure that concepts are clearly understood before there's any debate about who's done what. Otherwise, you can spend all day arguing about the difference between a website and a webpage, whether something is published if it's online and so on.
Objection sustained.
"How absurd," journalists say, "that a judge who's on a case about the internet doesn't even know what it is!"
It's possible Judge Peter Openshaw has never used the internet. That certainly fits with the stereotype of judges as fusty old men, saying 'eh?' and holding an ear trumpet.
It's much more likely, though, that he was pressing for a definition that would stand up in law. There is the famous case of a judge who is said to have asked who the Beatles were in court. It wasn't because he had never heard of them - it was because he needed a clear definition for the avoidance of any doubt later on. You can imagine the mess a case can get in if you start talking about a group of people, but don't define who's in it.
Everybody uses websites, but I'd be surprised if most people could give a robust definition of what one is. It's the judge's job to make sure that concepts are clearly understood before there's any debate about who's done what. Otherwise, you can spend all day arguing about the difference between a website and a webpage, whether something is published if it's online and so on.
Objection sustained.
# posted by Sean McManus at 9:48 AM 
Comments:
I wonder if there is an established definition in UK law of what constitutes a blog. My opinion was solicited on this recently for a post on Comment is Free, and it was more difficult to define than I expected.
<< Home