6 ms·

* Article I Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of R

by gills 16y ago

* Article I Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. * Regardless of our respective opinions on the matter, I don't see an [honest] interpretation of the above which gives the court (a) legislative power to (b) abridge the freedom of the press [within it's on courtrooms].

epochwolf 16y ago
(Don't add spaces to the asterisk) *like this* not * like this *
hugh3 16y ago
I'm not sure that stopping you from carrying a camera into a courtroom counts as limiting the freedom of the press. Courtrooms are special places, and very different rules apply there. Heck, the judge doesn't have to let you in at all, if he doesn't feel like it.
- petercooper 16y ago
  You're right, though I'm not sure it even needs to be a "special place" to count. Public toilets, prisons, and schools are "public" buildings but the press can't just waltz in and film anything to get a story.
- dedward 16y ago
  The freedom of the press is the freedom to publish. That has very little to do with the methods used to gather the information in the first place, or the type of information gathered. Freedom of the press is a subset and clarification of freedom of speech - it is important that it is not treated differently. It is not the freedom for the "press" as an establishment to do whatever they want in the persuit of material.
  - gills 16y ago
    Freedom of the press is specifically intended to protect the ability of private citizens to document the actions of government. Freedom of speech protects the ability to publish those facts. In combination these rights are intended to hold government accountable to the citizens. The proceedings which take place in a courtroom are by definition actions of government, and should therefore be subject to whatever means of documentation members of the private press deem most effective for their ends.
seregine 16y ago
The court is not Congress (or a legislature).
- gills 16y ago
  Yes. That's partially the point.
anigbrowl 16y ago
That argument depends on showing how photo/videography of courtroom proceedings would provide substantially more information to the public than textual or graphical reportage does now. Is the public going to be any better off by having access to recording of a judge's furrowed brow or the steely glint in a prosecutor's eye? Because past experience has shown that such trivialities are the sort of material that gets replayed over and over on TV. More seriously, consider the fact that people's attractiveness varies considerably, and a large part of our media is built upon selecting for visual attraction. What effect do you think that televised trials will have for plaintiffs, defendants, or witnesses who are ugly, or have a speech impediment, or whose attorney would come last in a beauty contest? It's a well-known fact that simply being taller correlates strongly with victory in presidential elections. Televised coverage of an emotive case mandates developing a 'charismatic strategy', and selecting for counsel and testimony based on their favorable visual impact - after all, this is the essential function of the casting process in narrative filmmaking (where I work). Once you go down this road you might as well go all the way: 'Your honor, I move for an extreme close-up of the witness, emphasizing his shifty gaze!' 'Objection! A cutaway to the defendant's cringing posture is clearly in order!' On a more general note, your literalist reading of the 1st Amendment would grant the press the right to do anything at all - burst into your home while you're on the toilet, raid your bank account, murder people on live TV, and start shooting wars in the name of public curiosity about the potential outcome. By this logic, anyone who declares themselves to be a publisher and has an inkjet printer or a blog is exempt from any constraints as long as they provide regular updates on their field of interest. Strict construction that leads to absurdities is no better than implicit assumptions about the judicial branch's freedom to establish standards for its own operation.
- blahedo 16y ago
  In a similar vein, does anyone here think it even remotely possible that we could today elect a president who was (mostly or entirely) confined to a wheelchair? In the days before ubiquitous video, this was not a problem at all.
- gills 16y ago
  Heh. You say "literalist reading" is if that's a bad thing! Surely you jest. In my opinion it's the only way to read that document, and on this point we obviously disagree. I will be more clear. In my opinion, freedom of the press is intended to perpetuate the ability of private citizens to monitor actions of government. Freedom of speech protects the right to publish those facts discovered by the press. You may twist that to include intrusion on private parties, or a slippery slope where lawlessness and slander rule, but that is not what I am saying. The foundation of my argument is that proceedings of any court are official actions of government, and therefore information that shall be in the public domain. If you want, you could add the word eventually to the end of that sentence, I don't really care. I'm not talking about beauty contests or "courts of public opinion", I'm only talking about accountability of government. In that context, if the press deems themselves, or their viewers the private citizens, best served by documenting the actions of government with the most sophisticated technologies available, where is the power of the judiciary explicitly enumerated to deny it?

by gills 16y ago

epochwolf 16y ago

(Don't add spaces to the asterisk) *like this* not * like this *

hugh3 16y ago

I'm not sure that stopping you from carrying a camera into a courtroom counts as limiting the freedom of the press. Courtrooms are special places, and very different rules apply there. Heck, the judge doesn't have to let you in at all, if he doesn't feel like it.

petercooper 16y ago
You're right, though I'm not sure it even needs to be a "special place" to count. Public toilets, prisons, and schools are "public" buildings but the press can't just waltz in and film anything to get a story.
dedward 16y ago
The freedom of the press is the freedom to publish. That has very little to do with the methods used to gather the information in the first place, or the type of information gathered. Freedom of the press is a subset and clarification of freedom of speech - it is important that it is not treated differently. It is not the freedom for the "press" as an establishment to do whatever they want in the persuit of material.
- gills 16y ago
  Freedom of the press is specifically intended to protect the ability of private citizens to document the actions of government. Freedom of speech protects the ability to publish those facts. In combination these rights are intended to hold government accountable to the citizens. The proceedings which take place in a courtroom are by definition actions of government, and should therefore be subject to whatever means of documentation members of the private press deem most effective for their ends.

seregine 16y ago

The court is not Congress (or a legislature).

gills 16y ago
Yes. That's partially the point.

anigbrowl 16y ago

That argument depends on showing how photo/videography of courtroom proceedings would provide substantially more information to the public than textual or graphical reportage does now. Is the public going to be any better off by having access to recording of a judge's furrowed brow or the steely glint in a prosecutor's eye? Because past experience has shown that such trivialities are the sort of material that gets replayed over and over on TV. More seriously, consider the fact that people's attractiveness varies considerably, and a large part of our media is built upon selecting for visual attraction. What effect do you think that televised trials will have for plaintiffs, defendants, or witnesses who are ugly, or have a speech impediment, or whose attorney would come last in a beauty contest? It's a well-known fact that simply being taller correlates strongly with victory in presidential elections. Televised coverage of an emotive case mandates developing a 'charismatic strategy', and selecting for counsel and testimony based on their favorable visual impact - after all, this is the essential function of the casting process in narrative filmmaking (where I work). Once you go down this road you might as well go all the way: 'Your honor, I move for an extreme close-up of the witness, emphasizing his shifty gaze!' 'Objection! A cutaway to the defendant's cringing posture is clearly in order!' On a more general note, your literalist reading of the 1st Amendment would grant the press the right to do anything at all - burst into your home while you're on the toilet, raid your bank account, murder people on live TV, and start shooting wars in the name of public curiosity about the potential outcome. By this logic, anyone who declares themselves to be a publisher and has an inkjet printer or a blog is exempt from any constraints as long as they provide regular updates on their field of interest. Strict construction that leads to absurdities is no better than implicit assumptions about the judicial branch's freedom to establish standards for its own operation.

blahedo 16y ago
In a similar vein, does anyone here think it even remotely possible that we could today elect a president who was (mostly or entirely) confined to a wheelchair? In the days before ubiquitous video, this was not a problem at all.
gills 16y ago
Heh. You say "literalist reading" is if that's a bad thing! Surely you jest. In my opinion it's the only way to read that document, and on this point we obviously disagree. I will be more clear. In my opinion, freedom of the press is intended to perpetuate the ability of private citizens to monitor actions of government. Freedom of speech protects the right to publish those facts discovered by the press. You may twist that to include intrusion on private parties, or a slippery slope where lawlessness and slander rule, but that is not what I am saying. The foundation of my argument is that proceedings of any court are official actions of government, and therefore information that shall be in the public domain. If you want, you could add the word eventually to the end of that sentence, I don't really care. I'm not talking about beauty contests or "courts of public opinion", I'm only talking about accountability of government. In that context, if the press deems themselves, or their viewers the private citizens, best served by documenting the actions of government with the most sophisticated technologies available, where is the power of the judiciary explicitly enumerated to deny it?