What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.
 

Jan. 11 2010 - 1:01 pm | 148 views | 0 recommendations | 3 comments

Prop. 8 Trial: Fade to Black

SAN FRANCISCO - NOVEMBER 15:   Hank Donat hold...

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Just as I was rejoicing over U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision to allow the federal trial over Prop. 8 to be broadcast on YouTube, the Supreme Court threw a wrench into the mix by imposing a stay on the tapings.

The black out lasts only until Wednesday – but that it was imposed at all is troubling. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that while having cameras in the courtroom is not an expressed right, judges may allow them at their discretion. California Rule of Court 1.150 (which governs California state courts), the “cameras rule,” similarly leaves it to the judges to decide whether to allow cameras, and enumerates 18 factors that must be considered in making the determination.

The Judicial Council of California has found that since first enacting the rule in 1984, “Courts grant the majority of requests for media coverage.”

Arguments against cameras in the courtroom inevitably center on the 6th Amendment to the Constitution, the right to a fair trial and an impartial jury (the amendment refers to criminal trials, but the Supreme Court has applied that right to all proceedings, via the due process clause in the 14th Amendment).

Those in favor of banning cameras in the Prop. 8 trial insist that the broadcasts would be harmful to witnesses. That’s an argument that could be believable in a criminal case, but not here. If people wish to enshrine their hatred in law, they should have to do so in front of a watching public, not just a judge behind closed doors. Moreover, the people actually testifying are likely to be academic experts, and are therefore not likely to be flummoxed by cameras, since their careers often involve weighing in on issues of public concern.

The Judicial Council found that camera requests are granted most of the time – so when it comes to a hotly contested issue that’s of interest to so many people across the entire country – cameras in the courtroom should continue to be the rule, not the exception.


Comments

3 Total Comments
Post your comment »
 
  1. collapse expand

    I’ve seeded this to my Newsvine column but I made an assumption that I could use some clarification on. You are talking about California’s Supreme Court, not SCOTUS, right?

Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook
 

My T/S Activity Feed

 
     

    About Me

    I'm a Los Angeles-based writer and editor focusing on pop and politics, race and culture, and where Gen-Yers fit into it all. My writing has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Christian Science Monitor, WashingtonPost.com, the San Francisco Chronicle and People magazine. Among other things, I'm Oregon-born, hip-hop-addicted, and weirdly optimistic that the journalism business will stay alive.

    See my profile »
    Followers: 204
    Contributor Since: September 2009
    Location:Los Angeles

    What I'm Up To

    Check Me Out

    … in Salon, where I contribute to the Broadsheet blog.

    … in Slate, where I’ve recently written an assessment piece on California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman; and ranted about why female journalists in movies are so lame.

    … or in the Christian Science Monitor, where I discussed Gen Y views on originality and plagiarism; and sized up Disney’s progress in representing race on the big screen.