<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Should We Ask Jurors If They Blog?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.blogherald.com/2007/03/17/should-we-ask-jurors-if-they-blog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.blogherald.com/2007/03/17/should-we-ask-jurors-if-they-blog/</link>
	<description>The leading source of news covering social media and the blogosphere.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:30:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Blogging Jurors Cause Controversy at Content Quake</title>
		<link>http://www.blogherald.com/2007/03/17/should-we-ask-jurors-if-they-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-175360</link>
		<dc:creator>Blogging Jurors Cause Controversy at Content Quake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:35:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogherald.com/2007/03/17/should-we-ask-jurors-if-they-blog/#comment-175360</guid>
		<description>[...] I ran into an article over at law.com thanks to The Blog Herald today, discussing the ramifications of blogs on jurors and jury selection. As someone who has personally just spent time doing my civic duty it caught my attention and was a great read. The summary is that a juror foreman, who was also a avid blogger made some controversial statements on this blog after being selected, but before proceedings had begun. Here is a quote from the Law.com article. The juror foreman, Scott Vachon, made an entry in his blog in early 2005, four days before jury selection, in which he said he would have to &#8220;listen to the local riff-raff try and convince me of their innocence,&#8221; according to court documents. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I ran into an article over at law.com thanks to The Blog Herald today, discussing the ramifications of blogs on jurors and jury selection. As someone who has personally just spent time doing my civic duty it caught my attention and was a great read. The summary is that a juror foreman, who was also a avid blogger made some controversial statements on this blog after being selected, but before proceedings had begun. Here is a quote from the Law.com article. The juror foreman, Scott Vachon, made an entry in his blog in early 2005, four days before jury selection, in which he said he would have to &#8220;listen to the local riff-raff try and convince me of their innocence,&#8221; according to court documents. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luis Alberto</title>
		<link>http://www.blogherald.com/2007/03/17/should-we-ask-jurors-if-they-blog/comment-page-1/#comment-174896</link>
		<dc:creator>Luis Alberto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:35:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogherald.com/2007/03/17/should-we-ask-jurors-if-they-blog/#comment-174896</guid>
		<description>Not being a lawyer, I find the juror at fault. They are instructed to not discuss (as in not tell anyone) anything about the trial you are going through. So in my opinion, that juror did exactly the same, regardless of whether there were comments made on the blog or not. Imagine a high profile blogger (ShoeMoney, Matt Cutts, etc) being sent into juror duty and pouring out the details in their blogs... that &quot;innocent&quot; blog post would be picked up by the media everywhere (and they would be a whole lot of trouble). So just because it&#039;s a small and lightly read blog, doesn&#039;t mean he can do what he did... at least that&#039;s my opinion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not being a lawyer, I find the juror at fault. They are instructed to not discuss (as in not tell anyone) anything about the trial you are going through. So in my opinion, that juror did exactly the same, regardless of whether there were comments made on the blog or not. Imagine a high profile blogger (ShoeMoney, Matt Cutts, etc) being sent into juror duty and pouring out the details in their blogs&#8230; that &#8220;innocent&#8221; blog post would be picked up by the media everywhere (and they would be a whole lot of trouble). So just because it&#8217;s a small and lightly read blog, doesn&#8217;t mean he can do what he did&#8230; at least that&#8217;s my opinion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

