1st Amendment Infringed by Supreme Court

[Dennis]

If this url does not work, then research Reuters News Service:

http://www.iwon.com/home/news/news_article/0,11746,76841|top|11-27-20 00::21:33|reuters,00.html

(quote - stress added by Dennis)

US High Court Won't Allow TV Cover of Election Case
November 27, 2000 9:24 pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday that it
decided against allowing televised coverage of the historic arguments on the
hand counting of ballots in Florida's contested presidential election.
In a letter to the cable television network C-SPAN, Chief Justice William
Rehnquist said a majority of the nine-member high court wanted to continue
its present practice of allowing print media coverage and public attendance
of arguments, but not allow cameras or audio coverage.
C-SPAN asked the court to permit televised coverage of the 90 minutes of
arguments on Dec. 1 on whether the Florida Supreme Court overstepped its
authority by allowing hand counted ballots to be included in the state's final
tally.
The case could determine whether Republican George W. Bush or Democrat
Al Gore ultimately wins the White House. Bush has been certified as the
winner in Florida by just 537 votes out of nearly 6 million cast, but Gore has
vowed to contest the results in court.
Rehnquist, citing the public interest in the case, said a transcript from the
arguments will be made available later in the day.
(Unquote)

“...allowing print media coverage and public attendance of arguments, but
not allow cameras or audio coverage. ... a transcript from the arguments will
be made available later in the day.”

Camera or audio coverage is prohibited. I can think of only two possible
reasons for prohibition of live coverage.

1) The Supremes want to eliminate “showboat” images so prevalent in the
O. J. Simpson trial. However, if transcripts will be made “available” later in
the day, theatrics would only be delayed - not prevented. Therefore, I don’t
believe this is a valid reason.

2) Editing. Editing? Upon whose authority? Who would edit what? And
why?

Any other reasons?

 

[gjwandkids]

Perhaps they fear that the sheeple will watch them like they watch Jerry Springer and the WWF.

They are allowing complete access by the print media and allowing T.V. reporters in the courtroom-they just don't want cameras. This would seem to be more about preserving the solemnity of the court than a desire to conceal anything.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

I support the decision. People simply act differently when they are on National TV. They turn from decision makers to "mediators"; they have the tendency to want to make friends rather than judgement calls...witness the OJ Trial.
Rich

 

[Waitone]

I oppose cameras in courtrooms. Participants quite behaving appropriate to the court of law and change to playing for the cameras. Do away with cameras in court and force reporters to report.

 

[Dennis]

Okay, folks. Just for the sake of argument.....

Do we oppose public trials? Of course not. So let’s go public. Let the public SEE
the public portion of what goes on in court.

Fixed TV cameras:
- do not move;
- require only the ambient light of a normal, well-lit courtroom;
- make no noise;
- require no crews; and
- can not attack anyone in the courtroom.

Therefore, an argument can be made that cameras are less intrusive to court proceedings and affect the process of the trial, less than those members of the public attending the trial.
-----

It is the responsibility of the judge to run an orderly court. If lawyers begin to “play
to the camera”, the judge has power to reprimand, fine, and even incarcerate the
attorney.

If it is the judge who is incompetent, then the people have the right to see and
evaluate the judge. Voters have the right to see their elected judge in action.

Defendants have the right to uncontestable evidence of wrongdoings during their trial.

Higher courts have the right to have uncontestable evidence when evaluating the
conduct of a judge and court proceedings.

(The judge in the O. J. Simpson trial was at fault and should be made to answer for failing to fulfill his role as judge.)

Taped court proceedings could be used to justify appeals for retrials and to remove
attorneys and judges from our court systems.
-----

If judges have the power to outlaw cameras, they have the power to outlaw the
public and, by extension, they have the power to try people in secret.

I was a witness in a “secret” trial while in the military. Classified material was
introduced in evidence. Secret trials have a very, very high risk to becoming
kangaroo courts - all in the name of “national security” and “for the greater benefit
of the people”.
-----

If we believe in personal responsibility and public trials, cameras should not make a
difference - or, if cameras make a difference, it is the offenders who should be
published.

If cameras are permitted in the Congress of the United States, cameras should be
permitted in the courtrooms of our nation. If cameras are permitted where our
laws are created, cameras should be permitted where our people are judged.

In summation, fixed cameras create no distraction and provide a record of
proceedings which can be used to evaluate those proceedings and the participants.

Used properly, it is in the best interests of innocent defendants to have trials recorded for later evaluation.

I believe it to be a First Amendment issue. After all, a courtroom can facilitate only so many onlookers. Physical space should not be a factor to witnessing the operations of our courts.

It is a Sixth Amendment issue: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."

The concept of "infringed" applies not only to the Second Amendment, but to the entire Bill of Rights.

 

[LawDog]

Cameras, or the lack thereof, do not define a court as being public or not.

Is there a decision by the Court not to allow people to walk into the court, sit down and observe the Supremem Court in action? I don't think so.

A high-profile case -- and this is nothing if not high-profile -- combined with TV cameras leads Court personnel to quit being legal professionals and start being actors concerned with PR.

Is it in the best interests of a case, or of an accused, to be tried by actors, or lawyers playing actors on TV, -- or is it in the best interests to be tried by lawyers being lawyers?

Gore and his henchcritters are already suggesting, demanding and opining that the Constituition be overturned because he won the popular vote.

You get cameras monitoring this case, and the facts of the case will be discarded in favour of playing for the Public. With the best and brightest wonks Hollywood has to offer advising Gore and Liebermann on everything from what to wear to how to stand to what lines to deliver. Scripts and psychology will replace the facts and the Law.

This is not what the Supremem Court is about.

LawDog

 

[Monkeyleg]

We already have a situtation where, in no large part due to television, it is near impossible for an "ugly" person to be elected to office. Witness the Washington "bubble hair" style worn by nearly every congressman. (Well, Charlie Rangle's pimp "do" doesn't count). Do we want to create an environment where the public responds to SC appointments based on appearance? Transcripts of the hearings will be available. I don't see where we need anything further.

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.

 

[pittspilot]

Just a Reminder

We are still unsure of exactly what transpired when the Constitution was deliberated. The debate in Philly was conducted in complete secrecy, and the men there promised to never reveal what was said in the midst of deliberation. That promise was kept by all but two men.

No, Camera's are a bad idea in a court room. In the Rodney King trial they demonstrated to me that those cops were innocent and other people did not see it, and then there is OJ. The impeachment should have been done behind closed doors. I think this would cut down on the grandstanding that you see when the camera's are on.

Besides, you can read the decision and transcripts after the decision, and draw your own conclusions, rather then the somewhat distorted view that television can give.