So let's say I'm called for jury duty (irl, not here)

[intrepidity]

And during voir dire I'm asked about my "social media" footprint.

Do I have the right to refuse to provide that info?

Or, asked another way, did the potential jurors in the Trump trial have to give permission to the court to access their info?

[Ocelot II]

1. They've got your name and address so they can find you on Facebook, etc.

without asking. If you put it out there it's public.

[intrepidity]

3. I thought there were levels of access?

(I'm not now nor have I ever been on Facebook).

But for those who are, I thought you can control who sees your stuff?

But also, I meant for places like DU.

[Ocelot II]

6. You can control who sees your stuff on Facebook but most people don't.

Facebook makes people use their real names, but DU uses screen names. It seems that it's permissible for lawyers to access public data on social media but they can't ask for screen names, passwords or other private information: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-ethics/jury-selection-20-ethical-use-of-the-internet-to-research-jurors-and-potential-jurors

In Most Jurisdictions Lawyers May Not Send a Request to a Juror to View Non-Public Juror Information on Social Media

The ABA, in Formal Opinion 476, observed that a lawyer cannot “personally or through another send an access request to a juror” for permission to view private information, since this would be “the type of ex parte communication prohibited by Model Rule 3.5(b).” This is the rule in most jurisdictions. See, e.g., Colorado Ethics Op. 127 (2015) (“[R]equesting permission to view a restricted portion of a social media profile of a prospective or sitting juror involves a communication with that person. Without express authorization from the court, any form of communication with a prospective or sitting juror during the course of a legal proceeding would be an improper ex parte communication.”); San Diego Ethics Op. 2011-2 (“requesting permission to view a restricted portion of a social media profile of a prospective or sitting juror involves a communication with that person … [and without] express authorization from the court,” is an improper ex parte communication); New York County Ethics Op. 743 (2011) (“significant ethical concerns would be raised by sending a ‘friend request’ attempting to connect via LinkedIn.com … or following a juror’s Twitter account”). See also Oregon Ethics Op. 2013-189, n. 2 (“a lawyer may not send a request to a juror to access non-public personal information on a social networking website, nor may a lawyer ask an agent to do so”).

Accordingly, the rule in most jurisdictions forbids “friending” as a means of reaching private social media sites, but there are significant variations from state to state.

[Hugin]

10. Hmm... That's interesting.

So, they can view “public”, but nothing else? I’d be surprised to find that in at least one case “they” haven’t tried to gain access through a “friend”.

Note: The items in quotations are the common terms for features that have various names on most social media platforms.

[hlthe2b]

5. I have been called several times but never asked about social media. I'm curious how they word it and

whether or not it would be phrased so that online forums, such as DU would be included. Those of us who post anonymously would not come up in basic searches (I presume) and I cannot imagine one could be required to provide anonymous screen names.

Still, I'm glad I've never registered on FB, Twitter, Instagram, Tik Tok or any of the others--

[Ocelot II]

7. See #6.

[hlthe2b]

9. Useful... thanks

[Tetrachloride]

2. Deflect

“I wasn’t aware it was open season on jury social media”

go ahead to refuse. silence is a right and ability that we are born with

[ripcord]

4. They have every right to search prospective jurors online

No one was asked for their social media information.

[Hugin]

8. The last time I filled out a jury summons questionnaire...

There was a section for social media.

My advice is to follow Stormy’s lead and remember that the Truth requires no maintenance.

[hlthe2b]

11. Because "the truth" is never manipulated, right?

Nice thought and probably once true, but... correcting lies requires a LOT of maintenance--as Stormy Daniels has undoubtedly found to be the case by now.

[Hugin]

12. To clarify, I am only suggesting to say, "Yes, I have a social media presence."

Short and sweet single word answers, as always.

[hlthe2b]

13. Gotcha...

[FakeNoose]

14. Some people have multiple aliases when posting on social media

Not everyone posts under their "own name" on Facebook, even though Facebook forbids aliases. I suspect it's also true on Xwitter but I don't really know. If the court doesn't know your aliases or your multiple email addresses, I don't think they'd have a way to trace those unless you voluntarily give them the information.

Jury duty is voluntary and there are ways to make sure you get excluded from serving. For example I'm hard of hearing and I would have difficulty hearing the proceedings without a digital text-display device. This is a common ap on cellphones, but cellphones aren't allowed in court. I'd be excused from duty for that reason alone, before they even questioned me on my political views.

[SYFROYH]

15. Just answer honestly. I do not think you have rights to refuse to answer a question.

The lawyers can object, but not you.

I would imagine if you refused to answer any question you would be bounced if not cited for contempt.