Supreme Court Says No Cameras In The Courtroom
from the aren't-the-courts-public? dept
In something of a repeat of the judicial system barring the videotaping and live broadcast of Joel Tenenbaum's trial, the Supreme Court voted to bar video streaming of a controversial court case in California. The 5 - 4 ruling was supported mainly on procedural grounds -- about how the courts couldn't make such a "change" without giving more notice. It's difficult to comprehend how that makes any sense. This is not a massive "change" in procedures or anything that affects how the judicial system works. It's merely an attempt to provide more transparency to what goes on in the court rooms, which seems like an extremely laudable goal, no matter where you stand on the various cases where this issue has come up.Of course, while officially the ruling was about procedural issues, the majority did also claim a fear that broadcasting the trial would put a chill on witnesses. This seems backwards. This is the public court system, and reporters are allowed to report on (most) cases, so anyone who testifies is going to be known to the public anyway and what they say will be reported on, too. How is that any different than if the video is recorded and broadcast in some manner? If there are special cases where video might create a real chilling effect, deal with those special cases, rather than pushing a blanket "no video rule." As Justin Silverman wrote before the ruling came out, the idea that videos in the courtroom would lead to attacks on witnesses made no sense, since it was already illegal to attack witnesses and we have a legal system to deal with that:
What good is giving the press freedom if it is not allowed to use the tool of its trade? In this case, that tool is a video camera. Similarly, law enforcement has many tools of its trade, the most important being the law. In California, the law includes prohibiting the very acts Prop 8 supporters and--apparently--the Justices are so concerned about. Perhaps it's too much to ask, but can we just let both journalists and police do their jobs?
By staying the broadcast of this trial--and impliedly finding that Prop 8 supporters will suffer "irreparable harm" absent a stay--the Supreme Court seems to be advocating curtailment of the press as a means of law enforcement. In a sense, there's a backwards Heckler's Veto at play: the Court is protecting the right of witnesses to speak by limiting the ways in which they will be heard and preventing retaliation by those who will not have heard them. Instead, those witnesses should take the stand knowing they will be given the largest forum possible in which to speak and the strongest protection against those who may retaliate when they do so.
And that retaliation is a big may. Among their reasons for requesting a stay, the petitioners say that "public broadcast can intimidate witnesses who might refuse to testify or alter their stories when they do testify if they fear retribution by someone who may be watching the broadcast." Further, "all of the petitioners' witnesses have expressed concern over the potential public broadcast of trial proceedings and some have stated that they will refuse to testify if the district court goes forward with its plan."
In a controversial case such as this one, no doubt the unpopular speaker is a nervous one. But I'm skeptical that witnesses already committed to testifying will suddenly shy away because of the prospect of video dissemination. Do they not realize that, without a single camera, the San Jose Mercury News is reporting live accounts that include the names of those taking the stand? That special interest groups will be Twittering their testimony as they speak? That there are already websites identifying Prop 8 supporters and where they live? Banning a broadcast, I believe, will not change this. But to allow a broadcast, I'm certain, will further enlighten the debate....
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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: courtroom, judicial system, supreme court, transparency, video
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Thoughts
Humorous to find that now Mike is saying that the Supreme Court is "senseless."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thoughts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disagree with one part
I have to agree with this. Be it a criminal case or a civil, most people wouldn't like being recorded on the stand. It's not just one camera, either. In high profile cases, every newspaper, magazine, and journalist would have their cameras, recording devices, etc. etc. all aimed at the person on the stand. Most people fear possible repercussions from anyone on either side of the debate. I'd be less apt to say a word if I had 50 cameras pointed at me. All eyes in the courtroom listening to me is bad enough as I am definitely not one for public speaking. Chances are, I'd miss some important bit of the story while retelling what happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disagree with one part
You do realize, camera or not, everything you do is already recorded, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disagree with one part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disagree with one part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i see the judge doing somehting funny under his robe
but i can't tape it on a camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A witness is already protected under the law, adding more laws doesn't make you any more safer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, there may be a gang member in the audience. So what? Depending on what drugs the gang member is doing, they may or may not remember you, much less the trial. However, with a picture, not only will that member never forget, the other members of the gang, regardless of where they are, will never forget. Gangs have a long memory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that gay gang
The entire basis of the decision is the genuine threat of irreparable harm to those witnesses. It's total b.s., as the 4 dissenters pointed out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: that gay gang
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: that gay gang
Come on. It's no different with a camera or without... if there is a difference it's all psychological!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cameras here!!! But not there!!! Over here is okay!!! Not over there!!!
Make up your minds... Do you want cameras? Or don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cameras here!!! But not there!!! Over here is okay!!! Not over there!!!
Dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cameras here!!! But not there!!! Over here is okay!!! Not over there!!!
Put cameras in the courtroom, murders of witnesses go up, and then everyone changes their tune screaming "No! Bad idea! Take them out! It's everyone else's fault for doing it." "The people who installed the cameras and the recording equipment are looking to profit on government courtrooms! They are the cause of our problems!"
Next time, use your brain to figure it out before calling people names. You know better... Dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cameras here!!! But not there!!! Over here is okay!!! Not over there!!!
This isn't about opening all courtrooms, and it certainly isn't a gangland murder case. It's advocacy for/against a proposition. If you don't want to be associated with your advocacy, shut the hell up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cameras here!!! But not there!!! Over here is okay!!! Not over there!!!
Second:
Put cameras in the courtroom, murders of witnesses go up
I could be wrong, but witness names are a matter of public record as is their testimony. They can be video taped entering and leaving the court room. There are actual, real live *people* in the court room, looking at the witnesses. Allowing cameras in the courtroom will do nothing to make witnesses more or less safe. This "harm for witnesses" line is nothing but a straw man. If someone wanted to do harm to a witness, they have the tool required to do so, and we already have laws in place against it.
The real "fear" here is that your next door neighbor probably won't take the time go down and request a transcript of the trial proceedings. He might watch a feed of it on the nightly news, though. These people are not afraid of being murdered, they're afraid of being found out that they are (in this case) homophobic bigots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cameras here!!! But not there!!! Over here is okay!!! Not over there!!!
I have to disagree with you regarding what you think is a straw man. Regardless of the "real" danger from cameras, cameras in the courtroom can have a chilling effect on witnesses. I am not so sure that murders of witnesses will go up, but refusals to testify might.
Yes, names of witnesses are public record. Okay, just where does Mary Smith live? What does she look like? How would you go about finding her with just her name?
Yes, people can be taped entering and leaving a courtroom, but you can also shield your face from cameras. Tough to do on a witness stand.
Funny you should mention homophobic bigots, because I was thinking about witnesses against the mob, gangs and even some violent criminals. Since I am not a homophobic bigot, does that make me a violent criminal bigot?
I state what has been stated before. Put cameras in a courtroom and I may not testify, depending on who the criminal is. I will already have a lot of exposure just being in the courtroom. I do not need my face highlighted on YouTube (or SerialKillerTube) as the person who had the key testimony and Sam "The Mutilator" Marks (fake name!), known mob enforcer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cameras here!!! But not there!!! Over here is okay!!! Not over there!!!
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cameras here!!! But not there!!! Over here is okay!!! Not over there!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cameras here!!! But not there!!! Over here is okay!!! Not over there!!!
I'm sorry but how does putting her on video reveal where she lives? And how does it change the fact that everyone will already know what she looks like because she was on the stand where everyone could see her?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cameras here!!! But not there!!! Over here is okay!!! Not over there!!!
(2) Having "everyone" already knowing what she looks like (though you do not specify who "everyone" is; without pictures everyone is limited to a relatively small number) is not the issue. Having an image available for "viral" distribution really does have the potential for "everyone" to know what this person looks like. Having a few people, at most, observe this person in a courthouse, nicely coiffed and nice clothes, and then using that description to find this person, is quite different from having a video of this same person distributed worlwide by 100,000 members of the Latin Kings (or a similar organization).
(3) But, none of this is really all that important, is it, because at the end of the day the question is whether having cameras in the courtroom will affect whether someone is willing to testify against someone else. Several people have stated that it would affect them. I think you have to believe this comment without contradictory evidence. Given the behavior of people, it is much like explaining that a snake is non-poisonous and will not hurt you, it does not change fear. Though in this case I have a reasonable belief that a camera recording my testimony for transmission to the world is not in my best interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cameras here!!! But not there!!! Over here is okay!!! Not over there!!!
And I think point (2) applies doubly when you take into account the jury as well as the witness. The names of jury members are not generally made public and being able to watch the jury as they react is a significant difference. It's a different conversation when you get home from jury duty if your immediate circle of contacts know exactly what you experienced, what went on, and how you reacted. It could potentially tamper the impartiality of the juror.
Just because "laws and systems" exist to deal with the risk, that doesn't mean the risk is completely mitigated by those systems. The court's ruling seems to be in line with a "Trust the rule of law but lock your car doors anyways" mentality that when dealing with the security and comfort of the witness, I don't see it as a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
public access
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: public access
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: public access
Being recorded in a courtroom gives people an account of you being in a courtroom.
Which, guess waht, everybody already knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are two problems with that belief. First, judges have authority to limit such displays. And second, the vast majority of attorneys are not entertainers and simply want to proceed with the hearing/trial in an efficient manner.
Cameras will be allowed. The old fogeys have to die off first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
..until people realize how boring the legal system really is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, trials are generally pretty boring. Kind of like watching golf, but no one ever gets to a green and there is no hole for the ball.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hell, Facebook and a newspaper could do as much harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limited Broadcast.
http://www.slate.com/id/2241498/
The broadcast was to be to 5 additional courthouses. Given this I would say there is even less justification for the Supreme Courts action. If, for example, there was a decision to hold a trail in an concert hall to provide a larger number of seats should that be blocked also?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Concern for the jury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prop 8/Hate supporters don't want to be called out
So supporters don't want to look like jackasses on camera and allow everyone to see just how stupid they really are. Regardless which way this case goes there is only one logical answer in my honest opinion.
I for one am all for video taping these trials, maybe it would make rabid religious wack-jobs think twice before thrusting their beliefs on others if they knew that everyone in the US would be watching them after the shit went down.
I think in the end they really are just cowards afraid they will be black balled for using their power to oppress fellow American citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prop 8/Hate supporters don't want to be called out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prop 8/Hate supporters don't want to be called out
Really? I believe everyone has the right to their beliefs. I am intolerant for saying other cannot force their belief on me?
No my friend, you are the intolerant one who does not want to here the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prop 8/Hate supporters don't want to be called out
"So supporters don't want to look like jackasses on camera and allow everyone to see just how stupid they really are."
Anyone who supports Prop 8 has to be a jackass? They're stupid? This is not intolerance?
"maybe it would make rabid religious wack-jobs think twice before thrusting their beliefs on others if they knew that everyone in the US would be watching them after the shit went down." is not hateful?
I don't support prop 8. But I see some of the reasons why someone might oppose gay marriage, and have nothing to do with religion. Can deal with taxes, as married couples enjoy tax benefits. Can deal philosophically with why marriage is favorably treated from a tax prospective (encourages population growth which is still important for the economy: note I don't say parenting one can become a parent through adoption which does not stimulate population growth but is good in it's own sense). Not everyone who's opposing it even on religious grounds has to be a hateful whack job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prop 8/Hate supporters don't want to be called out
No comment on the rest of your comment, but I will just note that this is no longer true in many cases -- and certainly not in mine. After getting married, we quickly realized that there was a serious marriage "penalty" in taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prop 8/Hate supporters don't want to be called out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prop 8/Hate supporters don't want to be called out
Prop 8 also marks one of the few times a state's constitution has been amended to take people's rights away and to actively discriminate against a particular group of people.
I have studied this stuff as a master level social worker so I am not just a punk kid blowing crap out my ass. I have also been married for 12 years and would never think of denying two people who are in love their right to the benefits provided by a civil union or marriage that I already enjoy.
I may be a bit passionate about this subject and go overboard, but it is for good reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prop 8/Hate supporters don't want to be called out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prop 8/Hate supporters don't want to be called out
Re-read my post and try again. I am all for cameras in this trial because I believe it will show just how stupid it is to force your religious belief on others.
There is nothing "clever" here, unless you think passing a amendment to the constitution that actively discriminates against fellow Americans citizens based on your religious beliefs is cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it's all about making the witness feel safe, then find a way around that. Don't use it as the excuse to not even try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bigot shield law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bigot shield law
If I had to admit something embarrassing or support something controversial in a case it would be at least some condolence that it's not going to live forever on youtube. And remember, for every witness there will always be an attempt by one side to discredit them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bigot shield law
This is not a murder trial. This is a political trial. If these bigots want to stand up and be counted, they should have the courage to do so. But bigots are, by definition, cowards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Supreme Court has no problem with changes in the rules to provide more transparency. What they didn't like was that a "pilot program" for a new rule change should begin with such a high-profile trial and not go through the usual mechanics for such rules changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
political reasons
Well possibly I might be on the wrong track, but it is one possibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets put cameras in voting booths
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lets put cameras in voting booths
Somehow people seem to think that surveillance by the press is better than surveillance by the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The courts will parade a myriad of lame excuses trumped up concerns, but the real reason they want to bar video recording equipment is so they can more easily cover up the frightening mess of the process they use to achieve 'justice'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I should point out that some courts with cameras warn that they are there so that people can choose whether they are recorded. A jury is unable to decline entrance. A witness may be conflicted with respect to the camera. I know that in some circumstances I would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can well understand one being reluctant to do so under these circumstances.
If OJ taught us nothing else, it is that televised proceedings can be quite problematic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because court reporters have long followed conventions about what and how to report courts are okay with their presence and methods as they are proven to cooperate with expectations.
But to introduce new reportes or new methods or provide the raw data for others to do as they please with is to upset a social order.
If the new reporters do not adher to convention then they may very well challenge the norms by which the court operates and changes to norms scare people, especially people weilding authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV cameras change people and I would hate to think that judges would start trying to become "popular" either through their actions or their rulings.
Of course, the argument could be made that it would make the process more transparent but I think what we have now is a healthy balance, court cases are open and people can report on them, but we don't put them "on stage" and turn them into performances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]