I'd like to point out the difference between the first post and the article linked to.

Jack wrote "Juror jailed for searching for searching the internet on the background to a case."

Article says "juror who researched a defendant's past on the internet and shared the information with fellow jury members has been jailed for contempt of court."

Rather different, don't you think?

Imagine a system where people are tried on the basis of their pasts instead of on the evidence. Police could claim excellent records simply by accusing anybody with a record of any new crime. Crooks could get off by fingering whatever associate of theirs has the worst record.

And of course, there are no guarantees that what Dall read on the Internet was correct or unbiased.