Students support allowing judges to make anonymous social media posts; provided the posts are unrelated to a court case.

This week the students were anonymously polled and asked two questions:
          1. should judges be allowed to post comments on the intrernet using a pseudonym? and
          2. should a judge automatically recuse him/herself if the judge has "Liked" a person or company which subsequently has a matter before the court.

The results, although not as universal as the virtually unanimous prior poll results that judge should be allowed to join social networking sites and that lawyers and judges appropriately may be online "friends", nonetheless shows strong support for the view that judges, as a group, should not be treated any differently than the general population in terms of  their online activities.

QUESTION ONE:

Ten students answered yes to question one and four students said no. 

Reflective of the yes answers is the sentiment that judges should have the same rights and freedoms as the general public, although a strong majority of the "yes" votes indicated it would not be appropriate to comment anonymously on a matter that is pending before the judge.  A couple of others responding "yes" also qualified their answer by saying judges shouldn't post anonymously on anything related to their duties or on  any legal matter, not just a case pending before them.  Thus, if the question had been narrowed to ascertain whether it is appropriate for judges to anonymously post on law related matters, the answer clearly would be no. 

Below are a couple illustrative observations accompanying the yes responses to question one:

          "I believe they should have the same freedoms as everyone else.  I do not think they should misuse their freedom of speech to make comments about a case they are involved in.  I would not want to miss out on other comments they have over other legal matters."

          "Yes, if the judge is not commenting on something that has relation to his position.  An example is that a judge should be able to write a review on a restaurant or comment on a non-related YouTube video."

The view of students answering "no" to the question are reflected by the following comments:

          "If a judge has a reason to make comments they should be done openly."

          "Commenting on one's position (as a judge) would be unethical."

QUESTION TWO:

The responses regarding whether judges should automatically recuse themselves from hearing a case involving someone the judge has "liked" on a social network reflects the overwhelming view that "likes" are not the equivalent of an endorsement and do not rise to the level of "bias." Eleven students answered the question "no" and four answered "yes."  The four "no" responses were primarily based on a concern over the posiibility of the "appearnace" of bias.  Three of the "no" voters also expressed this concern and noted that although a judge should notbe  automatically required to recuse himself, better judgement would be to do so to avoid any suspicion of bias. 

Below are some representative comments:

          "Facebook likes/dislikes carry little weight, in my opinion.  The judge could have liked a company to receive a discount or some other minor benefit---which should not affect the judge's decision in the case."

          "I think this is situational.  Some individuals "like" things simply to read about it or keep up with a topic/group/person.  I think they (the judge) should report it and a decision can be made after based on the situation."

          "I think that a judge should recuse himself to remove the appearance of bias.  It seems like a fairly easy thing to do to help everything run a little smoother."

Even among those advocating for recusal there was a concensus that judges are in the best position to make that decision on a case by case basis as opposed to a blanket rule.

As with prior polls, there was little demographic difference in the answers based on gender, political affiliation or major.