No such thing. Ask away!
-
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
-
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
-
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
Moderators
PieFed
Good answers here, but ignoring probably the most realistic and practical truth of the matter in my opinion.
You won't immediately be sent to the stocks for saying "I don't want to answer", the worst case scenario is that some officer of the court informs you that you must answer the question even if you don't want to. And even that is only going to happen if the attorney asking the question insists. And I struggle to imagine a situation where a competent attorney would do so.
Being hostile towards your prospective jurors, making them feel exposed and uncomfortable, is not a way to march to victory in a trial. They want to ensure you aren't prejudiced against their client/case. Making you dislike them personally IS prejudice. Causing prejudice is a bad way to eliminate prejudice.
They will ask questions, mostly yes/no ones, that you need to answer honestly. They may ask for clarification. If you don't want to answer and say so, it's unlikely anyone will press you because that unnwillingness to answer is just as clear an indication of who you are as anything else.
I laughed and now people are staring at me.
This seems correct. A judge (generally, without looking into all local rules) could technically rule that you are compelled to answer, and then continuing to refuse *could* lead to a contempt of court charge.
But the whole point of the process is to find a suitable juror, so if interacting with a potential juror is like pulling teeth in voir dire, the most practical solution seems to be dismissal by the judge so everyone can move along.
This is really helpful, thanks.
Absolutely not. If asked, just refuse to answer, don't lie. But, I've been summoned a few times and they've never asked about that, so far.
How would that be enforced?
If the court asks you to provide it and you don't, you can go in jail pretty much indefinitely under contempt of court.
please post a precedent for this, citation requested.
Sure thing.
TY!
Nobody was being asked for their social media credentials, it's not like you have to give them full access. What happened was that the attorneys looked the jurors up and went through their old posts, all stuff that was publicly available. One of the jurors they dismissed posted a picture of people celebrating Biden's election win, and that was enough to show that they were biased.
no, it was enough to show that they MAY be biased. The juror in question thought the event was in celebration of caregivers.
not sure if you're deliberately distorting the truth or just uninformed but either way... classy.
No.
Tired of the constant erosion of civil liberties. This ain't civilization
Disclaimer: Not a US citizen, but I think the reporting threshold is similar.
So, I recently applied for a bunch of US work visas as part of my job. C1/D, B1, and B2 to be precise. (Mostly to get my TWIC for easy port entry, honestly). And part of the process involved listing my social media accounts.
I don't use my Facebook anymore, and my lemmy (and then reddit) account isn't really significant. Beyond those, the only one with my name on it is my LinkedIn, which does in fact hilight an aspect of my job that shows why the above mentioned visas would be useful for me. So I ended up only listing my linkedin.
Visas approved. I don't think anyone cares hard enough to actually check unless your name is Daddy Al-Baddy
What exactly is the legal definition of "social media" anyway?
Personally I don't consider lemmy or reddit to be social media, they're more like several forums in a trench-coat.
Yeah, that term has gotten overly broad. I like to separate it into two groups. Personal social media, where you use your real name and stuff, and (for lack of a better term) anonymous social media, where you just use some screen name. If anything you post a comment in is social media most news sites are social media. The term needs to be reigned in and I think should only apply to the personal variety.
I can't wait to give them my Nintendo credentials and cry as they question me about my 1500 hours on Splatoon 💀
I'd say they are because I think I'm getting addicted to Lemmy. It's a habitual task in my free time now.
Lemmy 100% replaced reddit for me . Glad I found something where if it starts getting shitty, I can move to a new instance and stay on the same service.
I hope switching instances is more streamlined in the future.
Going by that logic benzodiazepines are social media
I was kinda making a light hearted joke but if you want to go by the formal definition, Lemmy is still considered social media
Social media:
Interactive forms of media that allow users to interact with and publish to each other, generally by means of the Internet.
I just want to add, that this is completely hypothetical. I was just fantasizing about slipping onto Trump's jury.
There are much easier ways to get a lifetime of death threats.
But, would it be worth it?
Yea, I'd still volunteer. Honestly, serving on a jury judging Trump you'd be contributing to the preservation of democracy in a more significant way than pretty much anyone else.
So uh... for managed democracy and super earth!
Those feelings are the sort of thing that would get you disqualified from the jury.
Oh, definitely... but I'm ineligible anyways.
I'd be right there with you. ✊
First, wow. Rent free and all that.
Second, I don't want to be on *anyone's* jury. And if I were selected for a jury, the government is going to have to work damn hard to get me to convict *anyone*.
I've been rejected from a jury pool before. Poor choice by the legal defender because of their own presumptions about me.
I feel like saying "I do not believe in convicting anyone" is a good way to not be on a jury. Otherwise, I hear you can just mention the magic words "jury nullification" and get kicked out at roughly Lightspeed.
“I’m a prison abolitionist” or “I support the prisoners union” work wonders as well. If you go far enough left it’s harder to stay on a jury than get kicked off
Can't you just politely decline and then they relieve you from duty? Or can they coerce you into doing a digital striptease for them?
Hellll no
I was just about to ask this same question in a different thread. I’m in a similar situation, in that Lemmy is the only social media I use (Reddit before the API crap), but I’ve never used my real name. I’d happily own all my comments, but the point of an anonymous account is that I don’t have to. I guess when you’re under oath it doesn’t matter, you have to truthfully answer the question that’s asked.
Answering the question in chronological order, during the voir dire portion of the jury selection process, jury candidates would be asked a battery of questions by the parties to the case, plus by the judge, to determine if the candidates can be sufficiently impartial as jurors. Some qualities are -- legally speaking -- so inherently prejudicial that a juror could not sit on the jury, such as being a active judge in a different court. Other qualities are potentially prejudicial, such as if a candidate is a police officer and the case is about police brutality.
For a case where social media evidence will play a large part, the parties may not want a juror that is keenly familiar with memes and the latest online trends. The lawyers would be permitted to ask about social media use, and could remove the candidate if their answer indicates some articulable bias that isn't an illegal category (eg sex, race). Alternatively, they can remove a candidate peremptorily, without describing their reasoning, but the number of these removals is limited.
Since the question supposes that the jury has already been selected, it may have been that the case didn't involve social media or the lawyers and judge didn't ask about it. However, jurors are always asked if they have any reason they cannot be impartial, so jurors would have to speak up if they have any doubts at all, vis-a-vis their anonymous social media accounts.
Still, after the selection process, when the jury is impaneled, they will be asked to avoid seeking out relevant news articles or discussing the case with anyone outside the jury room. This is not as rigorous as sequestration, but this would include avoiding posting on social media about the case. Jurors are usually free to carry on with the rest of their lives, with that in mind.
Thus, to answer the question, an anonymous social media account doesn't need to be "given up", unless it would affect the case somehow. But having such an account is potentially disclosable during the jury selection process. Ideally, the inquiring attorney would simply ask about the nature of the anonymous account, rather than forcing them to out their account.
Good answers here, but ignoring probably the most realistic and practical truth of the matter in my opinion.
You won't immediately be sent to the stocks for saying "I don't want to answer", the worst case scenario is that some officer of the court informs you that you must answer the question even if you don't want to. And even that is only going to happen if the attorney answering the question insists. And I struggle to imagine a situation where a competent attorney would do so.
Being hostile towards your prospective jurors, making them feel exposed and uncomfortable, is not a way to march to victory in a trial. They want to ensure you aren't prejudiced against their client/case. Making you dislike them personally IS prejudice. Causing prejudice is a bad way to eliminate prejudice.
They will ask questions, mostly yes/no ones, that you need to answer honestly. They may ask for clarification. If you don't want to answer and say so, it's unlikely anyone will press you because that unnwillingness to answer is just as clear an indication of who you are as anything else.
can you refuse to answer the question. feels like this is about your personal life. is that required. im fine if they kick me off but I would be mad if I was given contempt for not answering.
I genuinely don't know what happens then. At least in California, the questions for the prospective jurors are required to be germane to the case at hand, with final discretion in the hands of the trial judge. But supposing that one of the attorneys does pose a fairly invasive question and the judge doesn't block it, I would guess that contempt of court becomes possible. The California Rules of Court only suggest that a "sequestered voir dire" be "considered" but again, there's significant discretion to the trial judge. So typically, voir dire will be out and open to all the other jurors, the attorney, and anyone in the gallery.
Of course, any seasoned judge should be aware that some jurors simply don't want to serve or participate, and while they can't officially endorse that reality, a sincere explanation from the jury candidate that they don't want to answer the question often ends with the judge simply excusing the candidate and they just go home, having fulfilled their civil obligation.
The judge would have to be extremely annoyed by something else to consider contempt charges against sincere members of the public. This is the reverse from perjury, where lying to the court is not taken kindly at all.
Not an American, but if a lawyer / whatever *during jury selection* insist on trying to pry open one of your social accounts, couldn't you stop them on their tracks simply citing the First Amendment (plus maybe the Fourth or whichever is "can't be forced to give testoimony against yourself")? Forcing someone to reveal information that might make them persecutable by the government on the grounds of the government may not like their speech sounds like literal application of the 1st here.
I'm not a lawyer in any jurisdiction, but I think your intuition is correct, that the First and Fourth Amendments would come into play in this sort of situation, although the question is how deep are the attorneys allowed to pry before running afoul of these constitutional protections.
The First Amendment deals with free speech without interference from the government, and is interpreted to include anonymous speech, with only small exceptions when it intersects with other enumerated rights. However, the cases dealing with anonymous speech tend to be related to whether to unmask the person behind an anonymous speech, rather than trying to discover a person's anonymous writings without initially suspecting that they had any. One such example case relates to the Devin Nunes' Cow Twitter account, where a defamation suit brought by the former House Representative tried to force Twitter to reveal the account's owner. Ultimately, a judge removed Twitter from the suit, so the owner remained anonymous.
The thrust of protecting anonymous speech is much the same as for whistleblowers: people are less willing to speak the truth if they know the haters will seek reprisals against them. This is a chilling effect on speech, which the First Amendment frowns upon. Likewise, it can be argued that the forced, after-the-fact revealing of an anonymous account will deter current and future anon account owners from posting candidly, even if their posts are perfectly legal.
Separately, the Fourth Amendment deals with rights against search and seizure, allowing only reasonable searches following particular processes. This right combats the problem of results-oriented, overzealous govt officials searching every person until they find a crime, rather than identifying specific persons for whom may have committed a particular crime. If the homes of 100 random people were searched, it's likely they'd all have something they'd want to keep hidden, either for personal or social reasons, or even criminal in nature. But the Fourth prohibits this sort of fishing expedition.
But the Fourth is not a total bar to searches: they just have to be reasonable, which can vary based on circumstance. For example, if someone matches a crime victim's sworn description of their attacker, and a police officer detains that person on the street, a pat-down search of that person is reasonable to check for weapons, like a hidden gun or knife, which could harm the officer. It would not be reasonable to also search for evidence of other crimes, such as for drugs or counterfeit money, because probable cause did not exist for those crimes. Likewise, if this pat-down occurred instead after the TSA checkpoint at an airport, then that search for weapons may be unreasonable, because there shouldn't be any way to bring a weapon into that part of the airport.
A question to a jury candidate arguably meets the reasonable criteria, at least initially, because there's a bona fide reason why the question is being asked: to assemble an impartial jury. But this can quickly become unreasonable if the attorney questions stray off into the weeds. The reasonable test is very "fact intensive", meaning every case is different and there are no hard-and-fast rules that can be easily applied.
That said, I think you were thinking of the Fifth Amendment, which among other things deals with self-incrimination. That is, the government cannot force a statement from someone, and then use that statement against that person to punish them. This came about because beating confessions out of people is a Bad Thing, although it's notable that the Fifth doesn't actually prevent barbarous behavior. Merely, it means the answers cannot be admissable toward punishing somebody.
The Fifth is strange in that it's the government that has the choice: either 1) compel someone to talk, but they will suffer zero criminal consequences for what they said, or 2) don't force them to speak, and thus allowed to pursue any/all lawful penalties. The first situation arises commonly in testimony before non-judicial bodies, like the US Congress. For example, a House committee might weigh the pros and cons of quizzing a former mob boss or a tech company CEO, and decide that their truthful answers -- compelled by time in a jail cell if they don't speak up -- is more important than them getting their comeuppance in court later. Often times, the testimony obtained can be used against a different person, which is perfectly admissable because it's not self-incriminating. Because the govt has the choice of these two options, it's possible to compel someone to admit to embarrassing details, so long as the threat of legal prosecution is zero, usually guaranteed by a grant of immunity. It's not clear to me if immunity also carries over to civil lawsuits filed by victims later.
So in a jury selection process, it's possible for the court to compel the jury candidate to answer about their anonymous social media account, but if a follow-up investigation by a prosecutor finds that the account is somehow criminal, the prosecutor is barred from pursuing charges, by the Fifth Amendment.
In summary, in the scenario where an attorney asks "do you use social media, and describe your accounts", the question is likely proper per the Fourth Amendment. But an answer such as "I have an anonymous account about cat memes" is likely sufficiently responsive, if it's the truth. However, the follow-up question of "what is the name of your anonymous account" is likely improper because of the First Amendment. Again, in most courtrooms, the judge would probably take the hint and figure out a way to excuse the jury candidate before it got this invasive.
Wow this is tremendously informative for me as a Non American, yeah. Thanks! in particular explaining how the Fifth works.
This seems to be posed on top of what the OP is asking.
The problem is that while on its face the question seems reasonable it quickly becomes more and more absurd the longer you consider it.
ANY online account could be considered social media these days by the prevailing overly broad definitions used. Email? Amazon? ISP subscriber? Newspaper subscription? Cloud storage? Image hosting? Online diary? Tech support forum? Teams account through work? Almost universally they all either include social media components or could be defined as such by the overly broad definitions common today. The question has about as much meaning as asking if the juror has ever used the Internet at all.
What is "the question"?
Because I doubt the questions in a voir dire would simply be "have you ever used social media?" but would a series of questions responding to the answers, all tailored to finding out if the juror is interacting with material that is prejudical.
Don't give anything. It can disqualify you, but this is no different than asking your grandma for her diary before they let her sit a jury.
What if you are a heavy social media user, and the person on trial is a heavy social media user? Should they not get a jury of their peers?
The court has more important things to do than inquire about your internet history, and you'd have to be a moron to bring up the subject.
Why would they ask about social media at all?
Somehow I feel like you haven’t read the news in the last 72 hours…
Man it must be nice to live in wherever bubble @morphballganon is in.
I don't know either. I don't do any TV news. There must more important things going on than jury selection in loser Trump's case. That said, what happened with this social media jury thing?
Well_
It's the first criminal prosecution of a US President, ever.
Like it's never happened before. So from a history, unique event perspective there is that.
But also, yeah it's like totally non news for one person to be in the jury selection process for a trial.
The news is that Court room reporters via Fox were basically doing jurors.
All good points.
Oh, doxing. Yeah. The conservative media machine doesn't sleep on one inch. They have unlimited money, labor, tech, and time. Their goal is to make public service work contentious and adversarial, and stop government from working, especially on things like registrars of voters, boards of education, and of course jury service.
Of course that was going to be an issue in this case. Need to start treating interference with government service as a serious crime.
Because it’s in everyone’s best interest that people with overt bias are dismissed. In high profile cases it’s standard practice for both sides to do pretty intensive research on individual prospective jurors (they get a list), and that often includes scouring the web for their social media accounts. If they find something you posted, and you didn’t disclose your account when asked, you could be in trouble.
I don’t think it’s usually standard to ask specifically about social media accounts, at least in normal mundane cases, but in a crazy case like this, it can say a lot about a person’s ability to be impartial.
Thanks for the participation everyone!
My conclusion is that the question is moot. You most likely won't be asked to give up your entire social media activity. But you can be asked about the content if it's relevant to the case.
Perjury is serious beyond the penalties, and i solemnly swear that i had no intentions of doing so.
Legally, wouldn't you have to?
When you're answering the questionnaire, you're already sworn-in and under oath, so I would assume you'd legally have to. Not sure what the penalty would be, though, but I'm not really interested in finding out.
I guess they'd also have to prove it's yours, though. Still, even though I use a pseudo-anonymous name online, I don't post anything I wouldn't want my real name next to.
Edit: OTOH, you could probably refuse to answer which would likely get you dismissed. IANAL, though. The last time I was summoned for jury duty, they didn't ask about social media accounts or anything like that. Just a few questions that would have indicated whether I could be impartial.
That feels like a privacy issue, maybe related to the topic of whether or not they can force you to unlock your phone? I don't know where the current law is on that.
Yeah, that's why I added that bit at the bottom. You could *probably* safely decline to answer, but they'd likely dismiss you for that. Which, if you just want out of jury duty, may be a way to do it lol. Either way, you should definitely not lie and say "no".
I’m on the go, but I believe the mechanics for the most jurisdictions is that a refusal to answer would then be put to the judge as to if an answer must be compelled or not.
If you assert a right to silence for possible self-incrimination reasons, or if the question is very personal and the invasive nature outweighs the value of the question, a judge may rule against needing to answer. If the judge rules that you are compelled to answer, a continued refusal may lead to a contempt charge. That’s something of a worst case and I think it’s more likely the judge would dismisss as a practical matter. This would not cost the attorneys any of their freebie jury dismissals.
That means if you had for example highly biased social media history and were refusing to answer because you’re trying to sneak something past and get seated, it really doesn’t help you because you get dismissed by the judge and it doesn’t even cost the “opposing” attorney anything. If the judge rules that you don’t have to answer, the “opposing” attorney can still dismiss you because they got a bad vibe.
If you have biased social media history and you’re trying to get out of jury duty, if anything you’d want to talk about it as much as possible.
There are situations where responsiveness is compelled. If a judge rules that a question must be answered in voir dire, that’s a situation.
The solution, as it were, to compelled speech is that for example if you somehow are compelled into admitting to a crime, that speech couldn’t be criminally used against you. There has been at least one high profile case where compelled speech was used for a criminal conviction which we ended up being reversed.
Of course, a situation in jury selection where a question would lead to a 5th amendment issue and still be compelled seems very unlikely. More likely questions would simply be uncomfortable to answer. A judge has discretion to determine if a question is more invasive than useful. But something like social media posting related to the case seems like something most judges would allow.
Some comments in this thread are answering as if lawyers would be asking for the passwords or something. That’s not what’s happening.
Well they have this now.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/04/cops-can-force-suspect-to-unlock-phone-with-thumbprint-us-court-rules/
From the thread comments, I believe OP is asking about giving up social media between the summons and the selection as a means to more likely end up on a jury.
Attorneys might ask about past social media use and you are supposed to tell the truth. I don’t feel comfortable with people scrubbing their social media history and then lying to the court about what may or may not have been on it, which is the undertone I’m getting in the thread.
In a higher profile case, bigger and more expensive attorney teams will probably spend more time and effort to snoop on prospective jurors, on lower profile cases attorneys will probably just ask jurors questions and look at their answer forms.
Maybe if that anonymous account has something relevant about it so you can protect yourself from potentially getting screwed over legally.
need more explanation?