The letter from the editor of Civil Beat provides suggestions to the Chief Judge on how to address press access and live blogging during the Global Horizons trial. The editor recommends: 1) Allowing journalists to use laptops and internet in the courtroom or in an overflow room to listen to audio/view video of the proceedings; 2) Having the Society of Professional Journalists or Associated Press designate media coordinators to manage journalist access rather than the court determining who is a journalist; 3) Using pool coverage only as a last resort if multiple organizations request live blogging access; and 4) Only allowing non-journalists to blog or tweet from the courtroom if they agree to abide by court rules.

1. CIVIL BEAT http://www.civilbeat.com
T 808 737 2300
jtemple@civilbeat.com
Sept. 9, 2011
Chief Judge Susan Oki Mollway
US District Court, District of Hawaii
300 Ala Moana Blvd C-338
Honolulu, HI 96850
Dear Judge Mollway,
Thank you for giving Civil Beat the opportunity to comment on the comments about our formal re-
quest regarding press access to the Global Horizons trial, CR10-0576SOM.
I'm sorry that you feel news organizations haven't provided specific suggestions as to how to address
the concerns expressed in the court's earlier letter to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser in the Sou case.
You are correct that these are complicated matters. Please allow me to share my thoughts now.
1. General Approach to live blogging. In general and for the Global Horizons trial in particular, I
respectfully submit that the best solution would be to allow all news reporters to use laptops and per-
sonal Internet connections when they are in the courtroom, subject to all but one of the rules you set
down for the Sou case. (I believe this approach would negate the need to provide other news organi-
zations timely access without payment.) If you determine that the number of journalists requesting to
live blog from the courtroom is too great and would be disruptive, my recommendation would be to
set aside space somewhere else in the courthouse where reporters could listen to an internal audio
feed, and perhaps even an internal video feed if that would be possible. Most live blogging reporters
could work from that room, with a designated number of positions set aside in the courtroom for
journalists, including at least one for a live blogger. The journalists could be required to accept certain
conditions to work in the spill-over room, including not recording any of the audio or video. If you
followed this path, you could set conditions for when journalists need to apply, what they need to
agree to and how they would work with the United Marshals Service.
2. The thorny question of who is a journalist. The approach outlined above raises the thorny ques-
tion of who is a journalist. There are no easy answers. One potentially helpful approach came out of
U.S. Senate efforts to craft a federal shield law. Effectively, the definition could be whether a person
has a record of gathering and publishing news and information that is of public interest. I would re-
spectfully suggest that it would be best, however, for you to avoid putting yourself into the position of
determining who is a journalist, or evaluating one journalist against another. Instead, in cases where
you receive more requests than you're comfortable permitting, I respectfully recommend that the
court work with the Society of Professional Journalists Hawaii Chapter and have a representative of
that organization manage access to the trial for journalists. Another option would be to work with the
Associated Press bureau in Honolulu. Either organization could designate a media coordinator for a
trial. It was my experience in Colorado — where we had the trials of Timothy McVeigh, Terry

2. Nichols and Joe Nacchio — that the media is capable of managing its affairs and working with the
court to establish and follow coverage rules that maintain decorum during high-profile cases. This
approach could help the court and help journalists. It would give the court one person to work with as
a liaison. The media coordinator could work directly with the United States Marshals Service to pro-
vide the names of reporters approved to bring laptops and Internet connection devices into the court-
house, based on a limit set by the court.
3. Pool coverage. I would respectfully suggest that pool coverage be a last resort, only used when
multiple organizations request permission to live blog and the court decides to permit just one to have
access. In those cases, either SPJ or the AP could coordinate the pool coverage. The AP is familiar
with pool coverage, as are national organizations that might want to cover a high-profile trial in
Honolulu. In cases where you receive only one request to live blog a trial, of course, such a complex
process would be unnecessary. Given new technology, the reality is that other news organizations can
have timely access to the live blog content directly from the website of the source news organization
or from its Twitter feed. To provide timely access, it shouldn't be necessary to separately send content
to other news organizations the way Civil Beat did during the Aloun farms trial.
4. Requests from non-journalists. I would respectfully suggest that if people other than journalists
want to tweet from the courtroom or set up a blog and provide their own accounts of the proceedings,
they should be allowed to proceed if they agree not to violate the rules of the court and prove not to
be disruptive. But I understand that may be a too expansive approach that would raise a number of
problems for the court. Among the issues would be how you would decide which person or persons
should be allowed to use electronic devices in the courtroom. This is why I think it may be best to use
a basic definition of a journalist as a measure of who will get the privilege to report live from a trial
and when you receive too many applications, why I think it's best to turn the actual selection over to a
journalism group, as long as the people who are granted permission agree to abide by the rules you
set.
I'm sure there are issues I haven't addressed, but I hope these comments provide some assistance. I
would be happy to come to court to answer any questions you might have if you feel that would be
more helpful.
Ultimately, allowing reporters to work with contemporary tools in the courtroom will ensure that the
public is better informed about the legal process and kept abreast of matters of significant public in-
terest.
Thank you for your willingness to consider these important issues, and for your response to the objec-
tions of the U.S. Attorney's office.
Sincerely,
John Temple
Editor and General Manager
Page 2