4 ms·
> due to potential privacy violations This may be a thing people say, but it doesn't make any sense to me. The whole premise of the legal system is that it's p
by CobrastanJorji 3y ago
> due to potential privacy violations
This may be a thing people say, but it doesn't make any sense to me. The whole premise of the legal system is that it's public. Closed door procedures are the exception. You can generally walk in to nearly any courtroom, observe the whole thing, write down what everybody said, and publish it, and that's 100% legal. So the "no cameras because it might violate privacy" argument always felt weird to me.
- thfuran 3y agoBut you can't walk in and demand to see the jurors' IDs.
- CobrastanJorji 3y agoBut if it was somehow important to privacy, for example because maybe you could ID jurors, than they would never allow cameras in there, but many judges do allow cameras. Why is it up to the judges if there's an important reason for it?
- JohnFen 3y agoI see a really huge difference between being able to observe something and being able to record the thing. The latter is so much more intrusive than the former that different standards should apply.
- CobrastanJorji 3y agoOkay, but why can you transcribe everything that's said and literally paint portraits of the proceedings, but you can't use a tape recorder? Surely the gains in public access and accurate record keeping from an audio recording outweigh whatever extra intrusiveness audio has over text?
- JohnFen 3y agoAh, you're talking about during an actual court proceeding? I was thinking just in the courthouse/police station/etc. generally. In an actual court proceeding, things might be a bit different. In my state, anyway, the court itself makes audio and video recording of the proceeding and prohibits others from doing so. I'm OK with that, but I wouldn't have a huge issue if they allowed others to do it too. Outside of a court proceeding, though, I have a larger issue.