Short-Lived Tweet From Uzbek Court

An Uzbek journalist who was forced to leave a courtroom when judge found out he was using Twitter to report on proceedings says he may have inadvertently made the authorities aware of a the social networking site that is still little known in the Central Asian state.

On March 10, Vasily Markov was ordered to leave a hearing in a lawsuit filed by journalists Malohat Eshankulova and Saodat Omonova against their employer, the National TV and Radio Company of Uzbekistan. They brought the case after they were sacked in December for “absence from work” following their campaign against media censorship.

The judge hearing the case excluded Markov from the courtroom after it was revealed that reports of a session late last month had been disseminated via Twitter.

It was the first time this kind of technology had been used to provide live updates from inside a courtroom in Uzbekistan.

The debate on instantaneous reporting on court proceedings via Twitter centres on concerns by legal professionals that it carries the risk of prejudicing trials. They argue that short postings – Twitter allows a maximum of 140 characters per post – in real time may provide prejudicial or inaccurate information which might be seen by those involved in deciding the outcome.

Another issue is that bloggers and other individuals who use Twitter are not covered by the same standards as accredited media.

The lack of established international practice means that countries are coming up with their own solutions, some more permissive than others.

In western countries, which have high numbers of Twitter users, approaches vary, but the controversy surrounding the issue is commonly subject to debate rather than an outright ban.

In the US, federal judges are becoming increasingly receptive to live communications from court, although sometimes restrictions are applied in criminal trials.

In the UK, judges can authorise live reporting on a case-by case basis if an application is submitted. Exceptions include family cases involving child welfare.

In Uzbekistan, many fear Markov’s tweeting and the judge’s response will simply be used to tighten up state controls over the use of Twitter in the same way as has happened with the internet generally, where access is restricted, “undesirable” websites are blocked and private email communications are monitored.

It is estimated that there are only around 1,000 Twitter users in Uzbekistan, which has a population of 28 million. Facebook is more widely used, with about 50.000 followers.

Markov said that although he was initially driven by a desire to share what he saw in court with the public, he might have alerted authorities to a social networking system that is still outside strict government control.

“In attempting to report live on the court proceedings I may have done more damage than good, as the authorities haven’t to date paid much attention to Twitter as a means of distributing information,” Markov said.

An internet user who wished to remain anonymous said that Twitter has potential for reporting news in Uzbekistan, where the state media are dominant.

“This way of disseminating information achieves what the local media cannot do,” he said.

A Twitter user who spoke on condition of anonymity said he expected authorities to react swiftly to such attempts at live reporting.

“Everyone is well aware what will happen to people who tweet something important,” he said.

In the other Central Asian republics, Twitter usage is not much higher than in Uzbekistan, and the only few instances of tweeting from courtrooms have been reported in Kyrgyzstan.

There are just over 1,000 registered Twitter users in Kyrgyzstan, and some experts believe only about a third of these accounts are active.

One user is the head of the Golos Svobody (Voice of Freedom) group, Sardar Bagishbekov, whose experience of courtroom tweeting is more successful.

Last September, he reported live from the trial of Azimjan Askarov, the head of the Vozdukh human rights group in Jalalabad in southern Kyrgyzstan. Askarov was accused of involvement in ethnic violence last June and sentence to life imprisonment.

Bagishbekov said he did not notify judge prior to tweeting, and added that he did not have any trouble from the authorities afterwards.

It is not clear whether such a liberal approach is due to the more tolerant attitude of Kyrgyz officials, or whether what counts is when the judges find out.

The next hearing in the case brought by the two Uzbek journalists is scheduled for March 28.

This article was produced as part of IWPR’s News Briefing Central Asia output, funded by the National Endowment for Democracy.