?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Prop 8 trial

From an email I just got from Courage Campaign.


U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker -- who will be overseeing a federal court challenge to Prop 8 starting this Monday (January 11) -- is considering whether or not to open the court room to TV cameras.

The court just announced that it is seeking public comment on the proposal to televise the trial -- and that all comments must be submitted to the court by a Friday deadline.

The interest in this case is unprecedented. And not surprisingly, supporters of Prop 8 -- who eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry -- do NOT want the trial to be televised.

Opponents of Prop 8 -- led by attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson -- are seeking to televise the case in the interests of full transparency. They want this historic trial to be watched by as many Americans as possible. And, of course, we agree.

The petition they plan to present to the court Friday can be signed here. I expect there are individual ways of contacting the judge as well available with a bit of research but I haven't done it yet.

Comments

( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
darrelx
Jan. 5th, 2010 09:55 pm (UTC)
NO TRIAL SHOULD BE TELEVISED. It can be recorded and played back later, maybe, but NOT televised live!

The only reason to promote doing so is to prevent actual law and facts from being decided and to encourage mob-rule in place of rational argument.

It's a stupid idea, and I sincerely hope that it does NOT get televised.

David Boies and Ted Olson have a specific agenda: To distract from the facts of the case and hope that emotions rule instead, and to make themselves popular so that even if they lose, they can get book deals or paid appearances afterward.

Don't play into their obvious ploy to subvert the legal system and take advantage of the emotions of Prop 8 Opponents for their own personal gain.

After the OJ Simpson Murder Trial example, any judge who allows live cameras into their courtroom is either an idiot, or has their own publicity-seeking motive. If you ask Judge Ito what his biggest mistake during that trial was, he'd answer "allowing live cameras to be in the courtroom."
ghostwolf
Jan. 6th, 2010 03:59 am (UTC)
I'll say the opposite. Some trials should be televised, for the transparency mentioned here. Yes, the OJ trial was a farce, but that had more to do with Cochrane and Bailey than anything else, and it was a "made-for-TV event" of an outrageous kind to begin with.

Now, that aside, what should be done is the cameras will be there, but no-one will know when they're on so they can't "act up", with no contact with the outside. Those who won't behave are to be ejected with extreme prejudice, or jailed for contempt.

Television was once hailed as an educational tool. this gives another chance for it to be so.
darrelx
Jan. 6th, 2010 06:33 pm (UTC)
The transcripts are public record. The media will be present to report their view of events.

There is NO REASON to televise it live, except to 1) insert emotional irrationality in what should be a legal and/or fact-finding process, 2) enable instant reaction and mob-rule into the decision-making process, and 3) to make the attorneys famous.
kitschaster
Jan. 6th, 2010 08:14 am (UTC)
Highly disagree. This trial needs to be televised for the sole purpose of how Prop 8 went down.


I sent my note pleading for it to be televised, and I will watch every moment. Quite frankly, all trials dealing with public law need to be televised. Where the public is concerned, law making needs to be transparent. Especially when it affects a large population.


I also agree with ghostwolf on how it should be done, frankly.
darrelx
Jan. 6th, 2010 06:37 pm (UTC)
Highly disagree. This trial needs to be televised for the sole purpose of how Prop 8 went down

So, you want it televised why? Because televising it will somehow make your side more likely to win? That argument is EXACTLY why it should not be televised. The court should not be influenced by mob-rule, but should focus on the facts of the case and strict legal interpretation of the laws based on the findings of those facts.

Televising does NOT make a trial more "transparent"... trials are already transparent as they are entirely on the public record. In fact, televising a trial only serves to muddy the waters.
sffilk
Jan. 6th, 2010 01:15 am (UTC)
Just sent a note. Thanks for the link.
patoadam
Jan. 6th, 2010 01:24 am (UTC)
Wow, David Boies and Ted Olson on the same side.
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

March 2017
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow