Connecticut Gives Up Banning Cameraphones In Court Rooms

from the still-can't-use-them,-though dept

Tue, Aug 5th 2008 10:46am — Mike Masnick

It's been somewhat amusing watching as various folks overreacted to the rise of cameraphones over the past few years, with some companies banning them entirely, and a few clueless industry analysts insisting that they were just a fad that should be banned from any workplace. However, as cameraphones have become much more common, it seems that this mass hysteria is, thankfully, dying down. Over in Connecticut, they've even backed down on a rule that banned cameraphones in the court room. You're still not allowed to use them, but the courts realized now that nearly every mobile phone is a cameraphone, that it was becoming ridiculously time consuming to stop everyone from entering the courthouse, and make them tag and bag every mobile phone for storage and later pickup. Apparently, the lines to get into the courthouse were getting rather long.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cameraphones, connecticut, courts

12 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2008 @ 10:51am

This is great. Now I'll be able to watch the court cases from the comfort of my branded community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Your Gawd and Master, 5 Aug 2008 @ 11:30am
  
  Re:
  Is that the branded community gay sex scandal? Branded community date rape? Branded community child abuse?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alexander Graham Bell, 5 Aug 2008 @ 1:21pm
  
  Re:
  That is so 19th century...... Come-up with newer jokes!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward II, 5 Aug 2008 @ 11:02am

Are you sure "branded community" is trademarked?
Wouldn't it make more sense to require all cell phones be turned off? Any that ring would be finable for contempt of court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2008 @ 11:11am
  
  Re:
  Most courts already will charge you with contempt if the phone goes off, and every one that I've been into has a sign pointing this out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Yakko Warner, 5 Aug 2008 @ 11:24am
  
  It's been tried.
  Google "court room cell phone ring" for the case of the judge who threw over 40 people in jail when a cell phone went off in his courtroom and no one would admit to it.
  
  Of course, that was over the top.
  
  It would probably be just as disruptive trying to hunt down the offending cell phone as the phone going off itself. Although if the person got the phone out and started talking on it, disrupting the courtroom... Hmm, are there provisions already in place for disruptions, like if two people were talking loudly in the audience?
  
  Oh wait, that would be using existing laws and rules effectively. I forgot; we're supposed to come up with new rules banning every possible unique distraction in every situation. How silly of me to forget.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greg, 5 Aug 2008 @ 1:44pm
    
    Re: It's been tried.
    "Google "court room cell phone ring" for the case of the judge who threw over 40 people in jail when a cell phone went off in his courtroom and no one would admit to it.?"
    
    I'd have liked to see that judge try to put me in jail over someone elses phone ringing. I don't even own a cell phone (yep, I'm a dinosaur in this area.) Said judge would have been teabagged. Or maybe I would just sue the court for wrongful imprisonment....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward II, 5 Aug 2008 @ 11:08am

"Are you sure "branded community" is trademarked?"
** correction **
"Are you sure "branded community" isn't trademarked?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zcat, 5 Aug 2008 @ 12:59pm

"Tampering with Jurors"
There have been a number of cases in New Zealand where associates of the accused (usually gang members) have taken camera-phone photos of jury members in order to make them feel intimidated. It's a genuine problem which needs to be dealt with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2008 @ 2:34pm

Branded community
If I am not mistaken... "Branded Community" is the new name for the generic product line "GreatValu" and is available at your nearest Wal-Mart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MichaelK, 5 Aug 2008 @ 2:45pm

What? They didn't just do the simple thing like here in Indiana and just not let mere citizens in with cellphones at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Mullin, 6 Aug 2008 @ 5:29pm

camera phones in courtrooms
Two years ago I was a reporter covering crime in Seattle and I was one of the last ones without a camera phone. At that time they would let you into the courtroom in the county jail building with a phone, but not with a camera; if you had a camera in your phone, as most reporters did, you had to leave it up front. It was a big advantage to me not having a camera phone then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]