Cannes: The Weinstein Co. Books ‘Suite … 
BBC Confirms ‘Doctor Who’ Season 8 
‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ $22M Friday For Lower … 
Finally, Cannes Dealing! Radius-TWC Nabs Director’s … 
Hammond On Cannes: Wet Fest’s Official Competition … 
‘Vampire Academy’ Adds ‘Modern … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Shark Tank’ Finale Up, … 
Cannes: Worldview Options Andrew Dominik’s Marilyn … 
UPFRONTS 2013: The Overachievers 
‘Mike & Molly’ Creator Mark Roberts To … 
Carey Mulligan, Matthias Schoenaerts Set For … 
Hammond On Cannes: Weinstein Brings Out Stars For 2013 … 
Cannes: Fake Gunshots Interrupt Canal Plus Live Broadcast … 
‘The Great Gatsby’ Starts With $5.4M … 
Cannes: Music Box Snags Competition’s ‘Michael … 
UPDATE: Amazon Studios Begins Pilot Pickups; … 
Bruce Rosenblum Bids Classy Goodbye 
RATINGS RAT RACE UPDATE: ‘American Idol’ Hits … 
UPDATE: ‘Iron Man 3′ Box Office Crosses $1B … 
Upfront Market: Will Auto Makers Subsidize TV … 
Cannes: Thief Makes Off With $1M+ In Chopard Jewelry Meant … 
“Most of the American people would see 15-second takeouts, and they wouldn’t be characteristic,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia tells C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb in an interview to be broadcast this Sunday. Lamb has long championed cameras in courtrooms including the Supreme Court — and Scalia has vigorously opposed them. He says it would “miseducate” people about proceedings that typically involve “dull stuff that only a lawyer could understand or be interested in.” Is there a First Amendment issue? Scalia says it has “nothing to do” with whether cameras belong in the courtroom.
-
Marketplace
News/Opinion Poll
Loading ...Box Office Poll
Loading ...
Yay secrecy!! Let’s keep one of the three branches of government completely away from the eyes of the people. Scalia is a smart man, but ethically challenged.
you should know that Souter agreed with him 100%, and said cameras would appear in court “over my dead body”
Not anymore you’re not, Mike.
I am an attorney. I strongly disagree with Scalia. I think that he underestimates the number of Americans that would understand, at least somewhat, what is going on during the arguments.
What it comes down to is that he doesn’t want his words (or his colleagues’ words) taken out of context and used in political ads or on late night comedy shows or on YouTube or wherever, despite the fact that this happens daily with the words of President of the United States and every member of Congress. My question is, what makes the Supreme Court so special? Why are they above the other two branches of government in having virtually everything they say broadcast and used for either attack or ridicule?
If it’s televised, stopping people from pulling out soundbites will be as easy as enforcing copyright laws on the internet. Oh, whoops.
It’s a tough one yet one worth exploring. Scalia’s body language and comportment with his colleagues alone during proceedings could be quite telling. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Yes it could be instructive on some level. Yes it could further degrade the sanctity of the Supreme Court which is bad enough as it is. Generally speaking though judges giving interviews, I think, is a bad idea. Interviews (and photo-ops) galvanize the slippery slope of advocacy which can often inflame into society-problematic extremism through viral media. It was inappropriate for Sonia Sotomayor to pose for a picture with Jennifer Lopez and her ex-husband. (Although an easy mistake given the unprecedented circumstances.) That’s what I think.
That there is a flaw in reporting and journalism should not prevent future reporting and journalism from attempting to fix that flaw. That’s just shitty reasoning.
..the Court’s hearings are open to the public, a audio record of the entire hearing is available, a written record is available…the addition of a camera would not add anything to our freedoms or understanding of the Court’s procedures…to believe otherwise is shitty reasoning…unless you need pictures, big ones..and big print …
It is an interesting opinion on an interesting subject that uniquely affects LA County Courts.
Its not like the hearings are private. Transcripts and audio are released the same day.
Eventually, every court case will be on youtube in 1080p. Everyone’s dirty laundry will be possible to google up that way, and any future employer or relative and friend can see how you handled yourself in say bankruptcy court or a domestic dispute, live on their computers.
The argument here is that it helps democracy to have better access to the courts’ proceedings. In reality, what we need to help democracy is Youtube access to the boardroom meetings of the Fortune 500 companies instead. They decide our lives and our future, not some pseudo Jerry Springer footage about regular people, recording us when we are at our weakest.
Best comment on this thread, by far.