Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  Perry v. Schwarzenegger

The Prop 8 Trial Will Be … YouTubed. On a Delay. With Some Censoring

The Prop 8 trial Perry v. Schwarzenegger won’t be televised — at least not by CourtTV (TruTV?). Judge Vaughn Walker today decided he would let the court’s closed circuit cameras record the proceedings, and release the footage on a one-tday delay to YouTube. Which is like working on newspaper time, not blog time. Meanwhile, any witness that doesn’t want to be recorded simply has to ask; Walker will order the camera turned off.

Watch the clip above to see how three tech workers today tested out the system. Exciting stuff!

By:           editor editor
On:           Jan 6, 2010
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • 9 Comments
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      I’m sorry to say this delay and censoring and witness “opt out” of being photographed doesn’t surprise me.

      I think I learned in history class that the Congressional record can be edited in any fashion before it is sent to the presses. Wonder if that is still true.

      Jan 6, 2010 at 4:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      No. 1 · Jaroslaw: Didn’t the Bush administration do that every day??? : P

      Jan 6, 2010 at 4:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FakeName
      FakeName

      I think I learned in history class that the Congressional record can be edited in any fashion before it is sent to the presses. Wonder if that is still true.

      It’s called “revising and extending” and while it’s mostly so that Congress members can add material to the record without reading it word-for-word on the floor, it can be used to excise things actually said.

      The Bush administration, being part of the Executive branch, had no power to revise and extend he record of the Legislative branch.

      Jan 6, 2010 at 5:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eric
      Eric

      Props to the Courage Campaign for their mobility. Why the silence from HRC?

      Jan 6, 2010 at 7:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      The identity of every witness, and the transcript of every minute of testimony, is public record in every federal case. There are extremely few exceptions, mostly for national security reasons. Any audio or video recording made by court employees, is also public record. I intend to read the transcript. I read a lot faster than people talk in any case. I read most political speeches anyway — for just that reason.

      The main thing is that the trial should be fair, that it should reach a just decision, hopefully in our favor. This stuff about the video is just a side-show.

      I expect a number of reporters and bloggers will compare the transcript with the video, and report about any difference. The fact of a difference might even be bigger news than the omitted content would have been.

      Jan 6, 2010 at 8:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      In No. 5, Steve wrote, ” This stuff about the video is just a side-show.” Not really – the reason the opposition doesn’t want it to appear on TV is that a lot of people, including a lot of Proposition Eight supporters, will watch it. Then they will hear long and very cogent arguments from Theodore Olson and David Boies explaining why the Proposition Eight supporters are wrong.

      What the “Yes on Eight” side is afraid of is that Olson and Boises, even if they don’t win the case, will change the opinions of a few percent of the voters. And that’s all our side needs to win in an election if we don’t win in court first.

      The videos are a big deal because it would cost millions to get that sort of exposure in “outreach” campaigns, and it would
      probably help nationwide (assuming that the trial is shown outside the state as well).

      Jan 7, 2010 at 1:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      I know the Congressional record comment I made doesn’t directly relate to this post, but #3 FakeName – I understand what you’re saying but if one is presented with a “record” of what went on that day in Congress, then it SHOULD reflect exactly what went on. Revising, excising etc. is a perfect vehicle for fraud, deceit, misrepresentation etc. Don’t you think?

      Jan 7, 2010 at 9:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 7 · Jaroslaw wrote, “I know the Congressional record comment I made doesn’t directly relate to this post, but #3 FakeName – I understand what you’re saying but if one is presented with a “record” of what went on that day in Congress, then it SHOULD reflect exactly what went on. Revising, excising etc. is a perfect vehicle for fraud, deceit, misrepresentation etc. Don’t you think?”

      But you need some way of correcting typos – the person transcribing what was said can make mistakes. ALso, if a congress person says, “I support – I mean oppose – this bill,” correcting a misstatement on the spot, it’s reasonable to revise that to say “I oppose this bill” to reflect the actual meaning – doing that make the record easier to read.

      Jan 7, 2010 at 1:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PopSnap
      PopSnap

      This is exciting because it really is one of the best things we have going for us right now. Imagine how huge it would be if we win. It’ll be 5-4 in our favor, with Kennedy being the swing 5th vote.

      Jan 7, 2010 at 7:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

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