Court blocks taping of gay marriage trial

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100111/ap_on_go_su_co/us_gay_marriage_trial

Court blocks taping of gay marriage trial

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is blocking a broadcast of the trial on California's same-sex marriage ban, at least for the first few days.

The federal trial is scheduled to begin later Monday in San Francisco. It will consider whether the Proposition 8 gay marriage ban approved by California voters in November 2008 is legal.

The high court on Monday said it will not allow video of the trial to be posted on YouTube.com, even with a delay, until the justices have more time to consider the issue. It said that Monday's order will be in place at least until Wednesday.

Opponents of the broadcast say they fear witness testimony might be affected if cameras are present.

Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have allowed cameras while the court considers the matter.

Acting less than two hours before the trial's scheduled start, the justices said they also would not permit real-time streaming that would have allowed the trial to be seen in other federal courthouses.

The Supreme Court's consideration of the airing of the gay marriage trial is set against the backdrop of the court's own strong resistance to cameras.

Some justices might believe that their opposition to cameras inside the Supreme Court could be undermined if they were to allow YouTube posts of the California trial.

The federal judiciary, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has long opposed cameras in the courtroom as harmful to a fair proceeding.


-----------

good decision, hopefully it becomes permanent
 
Yurt said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100111/ap_on_go_su_co/us_gay_marriage_trial

Court blocks taping of gay marriage trial

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is blocking a broadcast of the trial on California's same-sex marriage ban, at least for the first few days.

The federal trial is scheduled to begin later Monday in San Francisco. It will consider whether the Proposition 8 gay marriage ban approved by California voters in November 2008 is legal.

The high court on Monday said it will not allow video of the trial to be posted on YouTube.com, even with a delay, until the justices have more time to consider the issue. It said that Monday's order will be in place at least until Wednesday.

Opponents of the broadcast say they fear witness testimony might be affected if cameras are present.

Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have allowed cameras while the court considers the matter.

Acting less than two hours before the trial's scheduled start, the justices said they also would not permit real-time streaming that would have allowed the trial to be seen in other federal courthouses.

The Supreme Court's consideration of the airing of the gay marriage trial is set against the backdrop of the court's own strong resistance to cameras.

Some justices might believe that their opposition to cameras inside the Supreme Court could be undermined if they were to allow YouTube posts of the California trial.

The federal judiciary, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has long opposed cameras in the courtroom as harmful to a fair proceeding.


-----------

good decision, hopefully it becomes permanent
Click to expand...


Why do you think it is a good decision and hope it becomes permanent? My understanding is that the 9th Circuit allows for taping and broadcasting proceedings within the circuit.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Why do you think it is a good decision and hope it becomes permanent? My understanding is that the 9th Circuit allows for taping and broadcasting proceedings within the circuit.
Click to expand...

no, it is a new rule promulgated by the 9th, this case was to be the first.

it is bad for the reasons i've stated previously and the reasons expressed by the majority....imo, it is not conducive to a more fair trial. people do act different when there are cameras. the proceedings are public record, there is simply no need for cameras in a case like this.
 
Yurt said:
no, it is a new rule promulgated by the 9th, this case was to be the first.

it is bad for the reasons i've stated previously and the reasons expressed by the majority....imo, it is not conducive to a more fair trial. people do act different when there are cameras. the proceedings are public record, there is simply no need for cameras in a case like this.
Click to expand...


I'm not familiar with what you've stated previously, that's why I asked. I don't really understand why there is no need for cameras "in a case like this." Aren't you really saying that there is no need for cameras ever?

My understanding is that cameras are and have been allowed in a variety of state courts without any real problems as a result.
 
So cameras in congress is ok, even when people are testifying to congress and it DOESN'T affect that testimony? But it will affect testimony in a trial. Wow I bet that holding would floor Court TV.
 
Socrtease said:
So cameras in congress is ok, even when people are testifying to congress and it DOESN'T affect that testimony? But it will affect testimony in a trial. Wow I bet that holding would floor Court TV.
Click to expand...


Yurt believes not only that official congressional proceedings be televised but also negotiations on the language of the final health care bill should be broadcast on C-SPAN, too.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm not familiar with what you've stated previously, that's why I asked. I don't really understand why there is no need for cameras "in a case like this." Aren't you really saying that there is no need for cameras ever?

My understanding is that cameras are and have been allowed in a variety of state courts without any real problems as a result.
Click to expand...

often when a case is sensational like this and the issues are hot button, the courts do not allow cameras. if any witnesses are going to be intimidated, no cameras. wouldn't you rather better ensure a more fair trial with no cameras?

this issue has resulted in threats to people opposed to gay marriage. i haven't heard of any the other way, doesn't mean they don't exist. if there are camera proceedings in a case like this, it is highly probable some witnesses won't testify or will not testify as accurately given the pressure that their testimony will be viewed by millions. why wouldn't you want to err on the side of caution? why is it even necessary to have cameras rolling?
 
NigelTufnel said:
Yurt believes not only that official congressional proceedings be televised but also negotiations on the language of the final health care bill should be broadcast on C-SPAN, too.
Click to expand...
It should. We have the technology, we can make Congress better, stronger, more respondent to constituencies...
 
NigelTufnel said:
Yurt believes not only that official congressional proceedings be televised but also negotiations on the language of the final health care bill should be broadcast on C-SPAN, too.
Click to expand...

yeah...gee, why would i think that when obama promised it. comparing congressional hearings to witness testimony is not at all accurate. congress folks put themselves in the spotlight and have promised that the proceedings are to be open.

how dare i hold them accountable for that. :rolleyes:
 
Yurt said:
no, it is a new rule promulgated by the 9th, this case was to be the first.

it is bad for the reasons i've stated previously and the reasons expressed by the majority....imo, it is not conducive to a more fair trial. people do act different when there are cameras. the proceedings are public record, there is simply no need for cameras in a case like this.
Click to expand...


Well I heard they will allow it to be shown on YouTube after the days proceedings are over.

Correction: I see now the Supreme Court said "no". At 5:00 am this morning in the SF Bay Area local news reported it was a go on You Tube.
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
often when a case is sensational like this and the issues are hot button, the courts do not allow cameras. if any witnesses are going to be intimidated, no cameras. wouldn't you rather better ensure a more fair trial with no cameras?

this issue has resulted in threats to people opposed to gay marriage. i haven't heard of any the other way, doesn't mean they don't exist. if there are camera proceedings in a case like this, it is highly probable some witnesses won't testify or will not testify as accurately given the pressure that their testimony will be viewed by millions. why wouldn't you want to err on the side of caution? why is it even necessary to have cameras rolling?
Click to expand...


I don't have strong views on it one way or the other. I see merit in the arguments both for and against. I was just curious as to why you felt strongly against it.
 
Yurt said:
see above, apples/oranges
Click to expand...
Mob trials have been broadcast before. Testimony is testimony, you are going to tell the truth regardless of who is watching. The damn thing is open to the public now, one more "eye" is not going to change the dynamic of the trial. I don't know who is afraid of what, but someone does not want the world to know what they say.
 
Socrtease said:
Mob trials have been broadcast before. Testimony is testimony, you are going to tell the truth regardless of who is watching. The damn thing is open to the public now, one more "eye" is not going to change the dynamic of the trial. I don't know who is afraid of what, but someone does not want the world to know what they say.
Click to expand...

what reason is there to televise it? it is going to turn into a circus, its a fact witnesses have been intimidated....there simply is no need to televise. merely "i want them to" is not good enough and certaintly does not outweight the potential to disrupt justice.

not televising it causes zero harm. while televising it could cause harm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top