Curse

PaulOtt · Mar 09, 2009, 08:09 PM // 20:09

I saw this video about a guy getting arrested for trying to video a court proceeding that he was covering.

If a court is supposed to be open to the public, why can't someone video record it as long as he isn't disrupting the proceedings? I mean, aren't the government officials supposed to be the public servants?

What do you guys think?

Unlucky Slayer · Mar 09, 2009, 08:40 PM // 20:40

Most court cases are NOT open to the public if the courts do not want the proceedings to be known to the public they are fully entitled to do so banning any and all recording devices other than the ones supplied by the court itself.

Lourens · Mar 09, 2009, 09:16 PM // 21:16

Thank god i life in holland and not in USA (nothing wrong with americans ^^)

Inde · Mar 09, 2009, 09:33 PM // 21:33

There's still a right to privacy for the involved parties. Would you really want your child filmed if they have to take the stand against a child molester? Would you want, plastered all over YouTube, your emotional trial of the guy who brutally beat you up? How about you testifying against your former employer for sexual harassment, guaranteeing no other company will hire you again? Or a trial on your arrest for a crime that will live on the internet for the next decade with people not bothering to find out that you were found innocent?

I'm pretty glad that not everything is open to being videotaped and plastered all over the internet and the news channels.

PaulOtt · Mar 09, 2009, 09:42 PM // 21:42

I agree there are times and places to have closed court cases, but that isn't what happened here as I understand it. I believe this was an open court arraignment (not even a court trial) and the arrest happened in the lobby of the court, not even in the court room. To me, this is more than a little extreme.

I believe it was open to the public, so anyone could walk and an observe, but the act of video recording is strictly forbidden at all times at this court house.

Inde · Mar 09, 2009, 09:53 PM // 21:53

I'm just throwing this out, I'm sure there's some legal reason out there, but filming isn't going to change an outcome in the court. That video though can be used for malicious reasons outside the courtroom. I'm curious, if both of these videographer's are in such support of "open" courts and videotaping, why they didn't specify what court or trial they were documenting?

I also find it extremely ironic that the man who was arrested for videotaping is being sooooo careful about releasing his personal details, when his intent of videotaping is to release personal details of the people involved in the court.

PaulOtt · Mar 09, 2009, 10:32 PM // 22:32

In the first video he says he's there to record the arraignment of a marijuana activist.

Inde · Mar 09, 2009, 10:40 PM // 22:40

Point goes to PaulOtt.

Winterclaw · Mar 09, 2009, 10:40 PM // 22:40

Freedom of speech and of the press are largely there as protections so people are able to speak out against the government without fear of retribution.

However there are still a few things you can't say if they would bring harm to others, like yelling fire in a crowded theater or saying/printing things vicious about a person that are untrue.

Lourens · Mar 10, 2009, 07:38 AM // 07:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

Freedom of speech and of the press are largely there as protections so people are able to speak out against the government without fear of retribution.

However there are still a few things you can't say if they would bring harm to others, like yelling fire in a crowded theater or saying/printing things vicious about a person that are untrue.

I think the guards wouldnt allow those people in.

zwei2stein · Mar 10, 2009, 07:46 AM // 07:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

There's still a right to privacy for the involved parties. Would you really want your child filmed if they have to take the stand against a child molester? ...

And would anyone falsely accused of X really want video of that trial on youtube? All it takes it to leave out his defense part and court ruling and he appears guilty.

DarkFlame · Mar 10, 2009, 08:36 AM // 08:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulOtt

why can't someone video record it as long as he isn't disrupting the proceedings?

Except, he was disruptive. He didn't go there to record an arraignment, he went there so he could get himself arrested for trying to record where he was prohibited.

We simply do not know the history of that court, maybe its had past problems with the media or some other reason for the ban. If you want to know why and challenge it, going there while court is in session intent on breaking those rules is not the way to go.

A simple Google of the guy(Dave Ridley) will tell you he's a trouble maker(read pansy liberal hippie with too much time on his hands).

pumpkin pie · Mar 10, 2009, 09:28 AM // 09:28

i think this clashes with innocent until proven guilty.

Lyynyyrd · Mar 10, 2009, 12:25 PM // 12:25

Freedom of Speech does not exist anywhere in the world. You just QQ a lot more when you notice because you don't have a limitations clause or a notwithstanding clause.

tl;dred the entire thread kthx