New social media guidance
Judges have received updated guidance on social media conduct, advising them to steer clear of expressing opinions on government policy and warning that even the use of emojis could cause problems.
The new guidance advises judges to avoid replying to, liking, or reposting social media content that could undermine their judicial independence, integrity, or impartiality.
Judge are also told to avoid engaging in arguments or debates on controversial topics, even if it involves correcting inaccurate or offensive posts by others.
The unpublished guidance, first reported by legal affairs journalist Joshua Rozenberg, warns that judges may unintentionally reveal information about themselves or their views through actions such as following, friending or unfriending others, liking posts, or using emojis.
The online guidance includes:
🧑⚖️ Do not assume your use of social media is truly private or that you cannot be identified as a judge
🧑⚖️ Do not publish or share your personal details
🧑⚖️ Be wary of posting photos that may identify where you live or work assume everything you post will remain published indefinitely
🧑⚖️ Do not refer, or even allude, to being a judge in your social media profile or anything you post on social media
🧑⚖️ Be alert to the risks of jigsaw identification
🧑⚖️ Be aware that people on social media may not be who they appear to be
🧑⚖️ Pause before you post
🧑⚖️ Be aware that you can disclose information about yourself and your views by following, by friending or unfriending people, by liking posts or by posting emojis.
🧑⚖️ Keep in mind that it can be easy to “like” content accidentally and that this can be perceived as endorsement
🧑⚖️ Keep in mind that social media misuse does not become acceptable because you were acting in a private capacity and…
• you did not refer to your judicial role
• you used a pseudonym
• you were being humorous or ironic
• you made a mistake
• you had — or thought you had — restricted your audience by using privacy settings
The guidance comes after a number of judges landed themselves in hot water this year over their social media activities. One judge was given “formal advice” after engaging in “politically controversial issues” on X, formerly known as Twitter, while another was handed a “formal warning” after “accidentally” liking an anti-Israel post on LinkedIn.
(
(