Post by Optimus on Nov 20, 2018 17:35:46 GMT -5
In other words, "duh."
But, I think this addresses interesting legal questions surrounding what can reasonably constitute a "conflict of interest" that might ethically require/demand recusal.
I can agree with this because I know many people who have huge friends lists and probably don't know 90% of the people in them, and probably couldn't even name more than about 30 of their Facebook "friends." Lots of people accept friends requests from people they don't really know, likely because it makes them look/feel more popular than they actually are, but that doesn't mean they actually have any kind of a substantial social relationship with those people.
I recently went through my own friends list and deleted roughly 30 people because we're not actually friends anymore, I knew the chances of me ever talking to or seeing them again were very low, and/or I didn't know some of them well enough to feel comfortable having them remain in my friends list.
Maybe @cassandraw or markesq can add their expert takes on this? Overall, even though the headline made me chuckle, the ruling seems like it will have some interesting, if not currently unforeseen, implications down the road.
Full story: qz.com/1467342/a-court-ruled-that-judges-can-be-facebook-friends-with-lawyers-because-those-are-not-real-friendships
But, I think this addresses interesting legal questions surrounding what can reasonably constitute a "conflict of interest" that might ethically require/demand recusal.
Florida’s Supreme Court has ruled on something that most social media users already know: Facebook friendships are not real.
Specifically, the court said in a Nov. 15 opinion that a Facebook friendship between a judge and an attorney does not mean the judge is too biased to preside over that attorney’s case.
Ruling on an appeal in a case where one side argued a trial court judge should be disqualified because of a Facebook friendship, the court added that even traditional, IRL friendship wouldn’t necessarily be disqualifying, because the nature of friendship is “indeterminate.”
Specifically, the court said in a Nov. 15 opinion that a Facebook friendship between a judge and an attorney does not mean the judge is too biased to preside over that attorney’s case.
Ruling on an appeal in a case where one side argued a trial court judge should be disqualified because of a Facebook friendship, the court added that even traditional, IRL friendship wouldn’t necessarily be disqualifying, because the nature of friendship is “indeterminate.”
I can agree with this because I know many people who have huge friends lists and probably don't know 90% of the people in them, and probably couldn't even name more than about 30 of their Facebook "friends." Lots of people accept friends requests from people they don't really know, likely because it makes them look/feel more popular than they actually are, but that doesn't mean they actually have any kind of a substantial social relationship with those people.
I recently went through my own friends list and deleted roughly 30 people because we're not actually friends anymore, I knew the chances of me ever talking to or seeing them again were very low, and/or I didn't know some of them well enough to feel comfortable having them remain in my friends list.
Maybe @cassandraw or markesq can add their expert takes on this? Overall, even though the headline made me chuckle, the ruling seems like it will have some interesting, if not currently unforeseen, implications down the road.
Full story: qz.com/1467342/a-court-ruled-that-judges-can-be-facebook-friends-with-lawyers-because-those-are-not-real-friendships
