Well we know that people who post on Social networks have found their personal lives scrutinized. I don't agree with a juror having access to news print, electronic, digital in any form. This too goes for Social Network sites. The idea is to have an un-biased Jury. If jurors are circumventing the guidelines of outside influences by Googling or what not, then I think the juror needs to feel some re-precussion for his/her actions. Reverse the situation for a moment, you stand trial for a crime and while evidence may point in your direction, you're innocent, yet you've lived an adventurous lifestyle that some of the jurors may disagree with, would you want those jurors passing judgement against you based on information that is not relevant to the case? I certainly would scream MISTRIAL.
Conversely, if you were a really rotten stinker, Googling someone and finding out info that has not been brought to light may also help keep a really bad person from roaming the streets. Even though on a personal level I prefer the bad guys to pay their price, I'm not willing to watch those who are innocent have jurors manipulate the system when the information about isn't relevant. The bad guys will likely f'up again and pay their dues some how.
It's an interesting situation.