The live online coverage is the first of such a ruling in the federal judiciary because the Judicial Conference—which is responsible for the policies of the federal judiciary—has long banned recording devices in the courtroom, according to the Boston Globe.
US District Judge Nancy Gertner has agreed to allow the Courtroom View Network—which broadcasts live state trials on the Internet—to show one of the key hearings against the student, Joel Tenenbaum, by a group representing the US recording industry. Gertner argues that because the case is of such high interest, especially to young people, the usual ban on recording equipment in the courtroom should be set aside, according to the Boston Globe.
“In many ways, this case is about the so-called Internet generation, the generation that has grown up with computer technology in general and the Internet in particular, as commonplace," Gertner wrote in an order published by the Boston Globe. “It is reportedly a generation that does not read newspapers or watch the evening news, but gets its information largely, if not almost exclusively, over the Internet.
Tenenbaum faces potential damages of about $1million for downloading music illegally.
- Does a judge have the authority to allow cameras in the courtroom?
- Does live coverage eschew the citizen’s right to a fair trial?
- Is the withholding of live coverage of a trial equal to withholding information from the readers of a newspaper? Do the people have a right to see the trial?
- How does the coverage of a trial benefit/negatively affect the whole process?
No comments:
Post a Comment