A rule is pending before the state Supreme Court to forbid electronic devices to be used in courtrooms at almost all levels of the state judiciary system.

This is wrong.

During corruption trials of former state legislators Michael Veon and Vincent Fumo, judges allowed tweeting and live blogging in courtrooms.

The Supreme Court began permitting the televising of court proceedings or oral arguments on Pennsylvania Cable Network nearly a year ago.

But Judge John Cleland ultimately banned all electronic devices from the courtroom during the recent trial of Jerry Sandusky.

And now Pennsylvania's courts are on the verge of ending all real-time reporting from courtrooms.

The rule would include not only "live tweets," but also would extend to "advance communication technology including but not limited to cellular telephones or other electronic devices with communication capabilities...."

The Pennsylvania Newspaper Association interprets that to mean that reporters would not even be permitted to use laptops to take notes.

Are the judges afraid of advanced technology disrupting the court?

Why? They always would retain the option of removing from court a reporter who misused an electronic device.

This rule should upset more than reporters. Public access to the courts is important to everyone. Open courts are crucial to the operation of democracy.

We hope the judges will recognize the value of electronic reporting and not impose a ban on everything but pen and paper.

Many other states are not so restrictive. Pennsylvania should not be so backward.