"“It’s one thing to think something like that, but to type it?” Crump said. “You really gotta be racist. You really have to have ill will and malice.”

Robles puts the My Space in context by inaccurately representing the state's theory of prosecution as to George Zimmerman . She claims racial profiling is a crucial element in the case:

A crucial element in Zimmerman’s criminal case is whether he racially profiled Trayvon Martin when he followed him Feb. 26, got into a fight with him and then shot him. Zimmerman denies profiling Trayvon and claims he shot him to save his own life.

Nowhere in the the state's affidavit for probable cause for arrest, which is the only document so far outlining the state's theory of the case, is race even mentioned. To the contrary, the affidavit repeatedly refers to Zimmerman unfairly profiling Trayvon as "a criminal." It never claims the profiling was based on his race.

Zimmerman, who also lived in the gated community, and was driving his vehicle observed Martin and assumed Martin was a criminal. Zimmerman felt Martin did not belong in the gated community and called the police. Zimmerman spoke to the dispatcher and asked for an officer to respond because Zimmerman perceived that Martin was acting suspicious.

....During the recorded call Zimmerman made reference to people he felt had committed and gotten away with break-ins in his neighborhood. Later while talking about Martin, Zimmerman stated "these a*sholes, they always get away" and also said "these f*cking punks".

....Martin attempted to run home but was followed by Zimmerman who didn't want the person he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime to get away before the police arrived.

There is not one word in the affidavit about race. In fact, the state goes out of its way to reject the idea that he used a racial slur as many believed. The affidavit makes it clear the state believes he said "f*cking punks."

One can be profiled in any number of ways: In addition to racial profiling, there's drug courier profiling, terrorist profiling, and many more. In this case, the state hasn't made racial profiling an issue, let alone a critical element. It's only alleged Zimmerman profiled Martin as a criminal. Also, profiling by a private citizen is not illegal.

Mark O'Mara, reading Crump's quote in Robles' article, posted it on his new website for Zimmerman, along with his response. Robles writes:

O’Mara published one of Crump’s Miami Herald quotes, and noted: “We believe that inviting public scrutiny of the contents of this social media account invites scrutiny of the social media accounts of all parties involved. While these social media accounts may be public, we will not comment on them publicly, as they may be part of the evidence produced at trial.”

Robles, after correctly stating O'Mara's response in which he refused to discuss the details of Trayvon's twitter account at the beginning of the article, provides her own interpretation, inflating O'Mara's "may be" to "would be":

O’Mara seemed to be suggesting that Trayvon’s social media accounts would be brought up at trial as well. (my emphasis)

First, the State's Attorney, not Crump or any lawyers for the Martin family, decides what evidence the state will seek to introduce at trial. Mr. Crump does not speak for the state's attorney. The states' attorney, as of now, has not addressed George Zimmerman's My Space page, let alone indicated it will seek to introduce it as evidence.

O'Mara did not suggest, as Robles says, Travyon's twitter account would be brought up at trial. His suggestion was that if Zimmerman's my spage page became evidence against Zimmerman, Trayvon's social media pages might be as well. Thus, he said, he couldn't discuss either page. He said:

While these social media accounts may be public, we will not comment on them publicly, as they may be part of the evidence produced at trial.(my emphasis)

Robles then goes back to Crump for his reaction to what O'Mara said:

“I always assume they are going to attack the victim,” Crump said when told of O’Mara’s statement Wednesday. “What part of what I said wasn’t true? You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see the behavior pattern. Zimmerman is on trial for murder: His credibility is at issue, his mentality is at issue.”

(Crump clearly isn't getting the message from the Court's April 30 order, reminding lawyers "connected to the case", not just lawyers representing parties to the case, that they are subject to discipline for public comments that they know or should know are likely to prejudice the proceedings. The court can address that with him if it chooses.)

There is as of now zero indication that the state's attorney, who makes the decision on what evidence to seek to have admitted in a criminal case, will attempt to introduce George Zimmerman's My Space page at trial. There is no indication a court would find it admissible. Absent both of those occurring, there is no suggestion O'Mara would seek to introduce Trayvon Martin's twitter page as a means of attacking Martin's character.

O'Mara still refuses to publicly discuss the contents of Trayvon Martin's twitter page, and has previously said he won't attack Trayvon Martin's character at trial -- as opposed to his actions the night of the shooting which are a necessary component of any self-defense claim.

Crump's reaction is nothing but predictable. But what's the Miami Herald's excuse for presenting the Martin family lawyers' theory of the case as the state's theory, and inaccurately reporting "a crucial element in Zimmerman’s criminal case is whether he racially profiled Trayvon?" (my emphasis.)

The Herald articles do nothing more than inflame the public discourse on this case, which the Court and the parties (who are the state and defense) have been working hard to temper so that a fair trial can be had for all. Promoting speculation, based on the false premise that racial profiling is a crucial element of the case, that Zimmerman's My Space page will come into evidence, and that Trayvon's twitter page will be admitted in response, resulting in an all-out character war by both sides, is, in my personal opinion, irresponsible journalism.

I may not be an attorney in Florida, or subject to the court's jurisdiction, but I do feel an obligation not to have this site used to prejudice the defendant or impugn the character of any party to the case, including Trayvon Martin. It's hard enough to keep commenters in line when dealing with reported facts. People want to talk about what they've read and heard in the news. When articles like these come out which cause people to become predisposed against one side or the other, it's even harder.

I'm not saying the Herald was wrong to report on its discovery of Zimmerman's My Space page. I'm saying it should have done so responsibly, without falsely stating the premise of the state's case and its critical elements, and thereby embellishing its importance and leading readers to believe a social media war was likely to occur in court during the course of which the characters of both the defendant and Trayvon Martin would be attacked.

For that reason, I will continue not to allow character attacks based on the contents of Zimmerman's or Martin's personal My Space, Facebook or Twitter pages here. Should either the State or Zimmerman actually seek to admit the contents of these accounts, then will it be a valid subject for discussion.

Similarly, since at this time, no notice has been given by either party that they will seek the introduction of any social media account, there's no reason to discuss how the judge might rule on such a request. (Obviously, that would entail a discussion of the sites' contents.)

What is up for discussion are the reporting by the Miami Herald, the propriety (or lack thereof) of the lawyers' public responses in light of the Court's order on extra-judicial comments, and the use of social media by lawyers to address inflammatory material that appears elsewhere. What's not allowed: your opinion that the defendant is racist, or conversely, that his suspicions about Trayvon were justified.

I know readers are unhappy with the commenting restrictions. All I can say is there are hundreds of other sites taking comments on the issue. I intend to keep the level of discourse here at a higher and more responsible level.

Update: According to the New York Times, Mr. Crump says he is not calling Mr. Zimmerman a racist:

Benjamin Crump, who is a lawyer representing the family of Mr. Martin, said in an interview that he believed that prosecutors in the case could point to what Mr. Zimmerman wrote as evidence that he has a history of racial profiling. “I am not saying that George Zimmerman is a racist,” Mr. Crump said. “I am just saying that if he has a history where he has profiled people before, the prosecutor could use that to show that it is a pattern.”