Basically, I Hate Cameras

After going through these readings, I find myself inclined to provide my own view of how the Sixth Amendment’s right to a public trial should be interpreted within the Digital Age.

First, it is not incumbent upon the court to televise trials in state and local courts because of the limitations of physical presence bears upon the community. As several of the readings refer to the traditional Anglo-Norman conception of a public trial – a view I agree with – the sense of involving the community was not for the purposes of entertainment, but for the purposes of civic engagement. That is, these traditional trials occurred out of doors for members of a community to attend, implying that the right to a public trial was for some form of community oversight in the proceedings. The key detail is that these trials were meant for the immediate community, the people who could physically attend, since these people would be the ones most directly affected by the results. Thus, it makes sense to say that a public trial is intended not for those outside the community – rather, it is intended for those within the court’s immediate vicinity.

That said it certainly seems incumbent upon federal courts to allow the media within their courtrooms. Given that federal courts have jurisdiction over the entire country, it seems to be within the interests of the court that the public has access to their proceedings. Still, many judges argue against this, seeing it as a degradation of the weighty legal issues into mere tabloid entertainment. I find myself agreeing with the judges. In today’s media-driven world, complex arguments are too often reduced to sound bites that fail to paint an accurate picture of how the judicial process works. The major argument for allowing cameras to capture these proceedings is motivated by the First Amendment. However, in a case similar to that of yelling “fire” in the crowded theater, if more harm than good is done by the freedom, then it should be curtailed. The O.J. Simpson trial is a telling example of how the media can negatively influence a court’s proceedings, and that trial wasn’t even a federal case. Given the weighty matters the federal courts deal with, it is best to err on the side of caution and continue to forbid cameras within federal courts.

There seems to be no necessity to allow cameras within the courtroom within local and state jurisdictions. While theoretically it makes sense to allow cameras in the federal courts, practically, it seems like it does more harm than good.

Question: my worry seems to be that the media will misconstrue or sensationalize the proceedings of a federal trial. Could a CourtTV style channel sponsored by the government that provides unabridged trial footage eliminate these worries of negative media influence?