Regulation of "For-Profit" Social Media? What About "For Fun" Social Media?: Proposed Court Rule Changes To Nevda Supreme Court Rules 229-247

.
Steph brought my attention last week to a recent Order by the Supreme Court proposes an amendment to Part IV of the Nevada Supreme Court Rules, as it relates to electronic recordings of Court proceedings in the state. The Order was issued on September 24, 2009 setting a public hearing to be held on November 2, 2009 at the Nevada Supreme Court in Carson City, video-conferenced into Las Vegas.

The topic for the public hearing was the proposed 'rule changes' that were attached to the Order, which included changes to Rules 229 thru 247 of the Supreme Court Rules. While there are several proposed changes to these Rules, is seems most dominantly that the main thrust of the change is to clarify the format for "pooling" media and shorten the request time to get media into the courtroom. Initially, Steph had asked, "I wonder where social media fits in the recent hearing by the NV Supreme Court?" Before I respond, let's look at the proposed changes.

If you look at who the rule is regulating, it specifically applies to only "News Reporters" who include any person "who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports or publishes news or information . . . of public interest . . . " However, you are a News Reporter ONLY if you provide this information to the public as "a substantial portion of [your] livelihood" or if you do it for "substantial financial gain." (SCR 229, proposed amendment). Even if you are a News Reporter, these rules only apply to you if you are "using a camera or electronic equipment." (SCR 229(2), proposed amendment).

As well, the intent of governance seems to clearly be to deal with "electronic coverage", which the Court seeks to define as "broadcasting, televising, recording or taking photographs by any means, including but not limited to video camera, still camera, or computers." (SCR 229(1)(d), proposed amendment).

My response to that is, "It does not really effect social media one bit." Really? Is that my response?

Before I dive into an in depth discussion of how this rule change will effect social media & Court procedures, I want to first get feedback from all of you. How will social media ("for profit" and "for fun") be effected by this new rule change? How will Court procedures change?

Post comments below, or send me an e-mail: legallyunbound@gmail.com
.