Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
couch potatoes

If Judge Walker Lets Cameras Inside the Prop 8 Courtroom, Will They Be High-Def and Have Dolby Digital?

remotefight

Even though Charles Cooper, the attorney representing ProtectMarriage.com in the federal Prop 8 trial, is fighting to keep television cameras out of the courtroom when the trial kicks off in mid-January, Judge Vaughn Walker, who’s already loosened the rules of press coverage, says he’s going to make a trial run of broadcasting the Perry v. Schwarzenegger proceedings by letting cameras inside for a Jan. 6 pretrial hearing. This whole back and forth reminds us of our grandparents sitting next to each other on the couch and bickering about who gets to hold the remote. You know, except less awesome.

By:           editor editor
On:           Dec 31, 2009
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • 9 Comments
    • Avarcirwen
      Avarcirwen

      Why aren’t all court proceedings videotaped in the first place, isn’t it our business? Even if they aren’t broadcast live it would make for a better record that the dry transcript.

      Dec 31, 2009 at 1:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      Almost all trials are open to the public for a reason – so that everyone can convince themselves that the trial, and by extension our entire judicial system, is fair. This trial will be open to the public.

      The objection that some witnesses would refuse to testify if their testimony would be made public is entirely without merit, because the testimony will be made public in any event.

      The problem in this case is that the number of people who want to witness the trial greatly exceeds the number of seats available in the largest available court room. That practical problem can be addressed by placing some video cameras in the court room, so those people can witness it via video.

      Dec 31, 2009 at 6:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"
      Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"

      Per your question about High-Def and Dolby: Lets hope NOT; regular broadcasting is good enough. Does anyone really want to see those ugly bastards in high def? Do you want to hear their shrill voices?

      Think about it, with witnesses like Maggot Gallagher, Porno Pete, Matt Barbiegirl: ugly ugly ugly; shrill shrill shrill. Fuck no.

      Fuzzy with static, fine with me.

      (There is one down-side to broadcasting the trial: no need for those characature drawings of witnesses. Think of all the fun the sketch artists would have with the likes of those wingnut twits.)

      Jan 1, 2010 at 9:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greybat
      greybat

      Let’s give the Public a chance to view them in all their ugliness.
      There’s probably a reason why they have to use Actors and models for their side of the story, while we use real-life people for ours.

      Jan 1, 2010 at 7:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ericka v.
      ericka v.

      More not so bright comments demeaning others as ugly. That door swings both ways. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

      Either way my bet is the public will NOT like what they hear or see.

      It will be a field day for traditional marriage supporters.

      Jan 3, 2010 at 12:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"
      Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"

      @No. 5 Ericka V.

      Talk about “not so bright”; look in the mirror, ugly.

      Per OED (that is the Oxford English Dictionary):

      ugly: • adjective (uglier, ugliest) 1 unpleasant or repulsive in appearance. 2 hostile or threatening; likely to involve unpleasantness.

      Maggot Gallagher’s, Porno Pete’s, and Matt Barbiegirl’s ugliness is much more than skin deep. Their souls are ugly with their hatred, bigotry, and homophobia. They enjoy their rights yet they fight against my right and the rights of some 15 to 20 million LGBT Americans to our “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” They are hostile to recognizing my marriage to my husband (together 24 years; married 2 years); they threaten the emotional and financial security of my family; and they involve unpleasant slanderous and libelous depictions of gay/lesbian relationships calling us pederasts, molesters and perverts.

      So yes, Ericka, THEY ARE VERY VERY UGLY. And so is EVERYONE, including you, you ugly ugly fuck, who supports and defends their most UNAMERICAN discriminatory anti-freedom amoral corrupted stands against the very principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the 14 Amendment.

      Jan 3, 2010 at 9:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Adam
      Adam

      Yay, Mike! I agree about these people.

      Jan 5, 2010 at 3:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 1 · Avarcirwen wrote, “Why aren’t all court proceedings videotaped in the first place, isn’t it our business?”

      One reason is that a witness involved in a situation embarrassing to that witness may testify differently if the trial is being broadcasted on national TV than if the only people who hear it are the ones in the room. You know, “after going to the defendant offered to for .” A lot of people would not want to describe the details while their mothers might be watching.

      Jan 6, 2010 at 8:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • gracevgray
      gracevgray

      we have already spoken no gay marriages, god has sent enough judgement now i would not want two men for parents or two women

      Jan 12, 2010 at 4:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.