4 GROUNDCOVER NEWS COURT FEBRUARY 6, 2026 YouTube Court increases access and transparency, violates privacy MARIE Groundcover contributor Over the New Year, a local resident served as a catalyst for this writer to investigate the current climate of using Zoom and YouTube for court. The resident sought community support with a cyber-stalking situation following personal information being shared via YouTube during landlord/tenant court. The stalker was sending pictures, personal information, and messages claiming they had seen the resident on YouTube court and were offering “help.” A peer provided assistance mitigating the situation by helping the resident change privacy settings on their social media accounts and blocking unwanted contact. According to the Michigan Judicial Council (MJC) Transparency and Public Access Live Streaming Policies/ Rules Workgroup Report and Recommendations, July 2023, there are several situations when information is considered protected and should not be broadcast, which includes, but is not limited to, information often shared during landlord/tenant proceedings and cases involving vulnerable stakeholders. The MJC is a 29-member panel established in 2021 by the Michigan Supreme Court [MSC] responsible for planning strategically for the Michigan Judicial Branch [MJB], enhancing the work of the courts, and making recommendations to the MSC on matters pertinent to administration of justice. After speaking with numerous local community members (who will all be referred to as “Buddy” to maintain anonymity), watching several YouTube court posts, and reviewing accessible information from the MJB, a pattern emerged, suggesting some overlapping viewpoints about the benefits and weaknesses of Michigan’s current internet court trends. For those who have internet access, attending court online or utilizing online court services saves time and reduces the cost burden associated with court activities. For many, online court access raises concerns related to privacy and decorum. For others, the use of livestreaming aids research and observation of courtrooms across the country. The basics of online court The concept of conducting court business with the aid of the internet is not a brand-new concept. All courts at this time have a website where information may be obtained and forms about how the platform operates, a channel with 1000 subscribers is eligible for monetization through advertising. The MSC Task Force report from 2021 suggests not utilizing a platform that has ads, and ads are among the options for monetizing YouTube channels. Task force concerns about ads at a minimum acknowledges a monetized incentive for livestreaming court proceedings. Using a monetized platform was identified as a conflict of interest by some stakeholders as it places profit or finances over the rights of people in the justice system. At this time whether the court system is earning any money is unclear. Investigations to gain clarity Judge Simpson hears a case remotely. accessed. Zoom court, or remote participation via the Zoom platform, has been around for many years, especially in areas where travel to courthouses is lengthy. The MSC’s Task Force on Open Courts, Media and Privacy Final Report, dated December 2021, defines Zoom court as participating in a court proceeding online via videoconference, without physically being in a brick-and-mortar courthouse. In addition, courts in Michigan use YouTube to livestream proceedings to accommodate observation (not participation) by the public. When COVID-19 hit, a major internet transition occurred when courts began livestreaming judicial proceedings via YouTube, and using Zoom for remote participation became the norm. YouTube court refers to the ability to view activities occurring in a courtroom either live or via posted recording. The MSC’s 2021 Final Report states: “To preserve access to our courts, parties and their counsel were generally allowed to participate in proceedings remotely. To preserve the transparency of our courts, those proceedings were streamed online using a variety of platforms.” Judicial transparency is “the idea that the public should be able to observe and receive information regarding judicial proceedings, including through media coverage.” To promote transparency, proceedings may be streamed online. Judicial access is “the idea that those who need recourse to judicial proceedings should be able to obtain it.” To preserve access to court participation, parties and their counsel may be allowed to participate using the internet. Positions on internet court The rules surrounding the use of the internet for court appear to be a work in progress, and according to the 2023 MJC report, providing live online streaming access is no longer mandatory. Both the MJB and the community express ongoing concerns including misuse of court proceedings made available online, monetizing live-streaming as evidenced by advertising, and violations of privacy. The MJC council presented the following list of stakeholders who require special shielding in all courtrooms: • protection of children and vulnerable adults, • protection of crime victims and witnesses, • preventing disclosure of sensitive financial details, • protecting privacy interests of parties, and • protecting privacy interests of jurors. A 2023 recommendation from the MJC suggests establishing guidelines for trial courts for the use of livestreaming, which include protections for stakeholders especially those who are vulnerable, throughout the process, as well as informing stakeholders in attendance about livestreaming prior to being streamed. Amidst ethical issues and concerns about constitutional rights, Michigan is utilizing procedures common in most states. Currently, the State Court Administrators Office Michigan Trial Courts Virtual Courtroom Standards and Guidelines, dated April 7, 2020, encourages the creation of a YouTube channel if a court does not have one. While YouTube.com provides more information around monetization are ongoing. Public comment Dozens of community members were approached and/or observed via the internet while conducting research for this article. Perspectives presented cover many judicial stakeholders, yet they do not represent all positions nor every population impacted by the justice system. While some of the following real-life examples were transcribed in real-time, many community members were engaged in a less formal interview format with notes written afterward. Buddy 1 didn’t know their court proceedings would be streamed: “[I had] no clue I was going to be on YouTube … the housing unit [in the jail] told me I was on the news … Judge has a YouTube channel and it was probably going to be on there … It’s B.S. the way they will exploit a person.” Buddy 1 also shared negative consequences of being on YouTube as “embarrassment and public humiliation … the judge kept egging me on, he’s supposed to be a professional.” On the positive side, they said, “I have a good rapport with [the] Judge now. I’m not going to smart off to a judge again. I learned a lesson.” Buddy 2 shared they have never been in trouble to the extent they had to appear in court, “but I would not want to be broadcast … it’s wrong and a violation of privacy.” Buddy 3 shared a story where they assisted a person who escaped a sexual assault and were coerced into testifying as a witness. While this buddy’s experience occurred prior to Zoom and YouTube court practices being implemented, they described testifying as traumatic, as they felt attacked while see YOUTUBE page 15
5 Publizr Home