American judges have a problem with social media

Two judges have been suspended over social media posts as ethics panels continue to crack down on online content.

On October 7, the Court of Judicial Discipline in Pennsylvania ruled that Judge Mark Cohen’s case was the worst case of backlash they had ever seen after he refused to stop posting political comments.

“No other case in the history of the Court of Judicial Discipline has faced such post-decision backlash,” the eight-judge panel ruled.

“People who appear before judges deserve honest, unbiased lawyers who can weigh their case,” she added.

The court referred to the earlier case of Judge Michael Eakin, who resigned from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2016 after sharing sexually explicit jokes with friends and lawyers through emails and text messages.

However, it noted that Eakin never intended the public to view the messages and had apologized for his behavior. Cohen, on the other hand, refused to apologize and continued to post political messages.

The court suspended Cohen without pay until his court term expires at the end of this year. Because Cohen is 75, he is age-restricted from running for judgeship again.

Cohen, who served on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, had posted mostly pro-democracy comments online even after the court ruled against him last May and warned him to immediately stop posting political comments online.

Throughout the trial, Cohen emphasized that his Facebook posts protected freedom of speech. They covered everything from environmental protection to the minimum wage.

The same week, in New Jersey, Bergen County Superior Court Judge Gary Wilcox was suspended for three months over TikTok videos in which he lip-synched songs with “references to violence, sex and misogyny,” according to an ethics complaint against him.

In some videos, Wilcox is wearing his judicial robes and in others he is in his courtroom. In some cases, he was only partially clothed while in bed, New Jersey ethics officials wrote in a complaint to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Musicians he lip-synced with included Rihanna, Miguel and Busta Rhymes, and he had previously been warned about his behavior.

“In all 11 videos that Respondent posted to TikTok, either the content – ​​for example, including references to violence, sex and misogyny – location – i.e. in rooms, in the courthouse and in a bed – or Respondent’s physical appearance – for example, wearing his judicial robes and/or being partially clothed while in bed – was inappropriate and brought the judiciary into disrepute,” the ethics complaint reads.

Newsweek asked Judge Cohen and Judge Wilcox for email comments on Thursday.

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani said Newsweek that all judges are prohibited from making biased or inappropriate comments online.

“Each state has its own legal codes of ethics, many of which are based on the Model Rules of Judicial Conduct. They all prohibit judges from making biased or otherwise inappropriate comments. Racist or sexually harassing comments would not be protected,” he said.

About Judge Cohen, he said the question is whether political or partisan comments are protected by the First Amendment and “are more difficult to answer.”

Rahmani, now president of the law firm West Coast Trial Lawyers in California, said it depends on whether the judge is speaking in his or her capacity as a bank official or a private citizen.

“In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Supreme Court ruled that public employees can be punished for statements made based on their position as public officials,” he said. “In other words, there is no First Amendment protection for speech made in the course of their professional duties.

“Even when a judge acts as a private individual, ethics rules can restrict political expression if doing so furthers the state’s interest in an independent and impartial judiciary and are not more restrictive than necessary.”

Professor Stephen Gillers, law professor at New York University, said this Newsweek that legal ethical rules everywhere prohibit judges from engaging in public political activities.

“The judiciary is an impartial and non-political arm of government,” he said. “When a lawyer becomes a judge, he or she loses certain First Amendment rights afforded to private citizens. A separate set of rules is intended to increase public confidence in the courts and judges.”

Of Wilcox, he said, “Judge Wilcox’s conduct, even after being warned, appears to have led the Judicial Ethics Committee to conclude that he crossed that line and threatened public confidence in the courts.”