Prop. 8 Trial isn't Made for TV
A San Francisco federal judge argued yesterday that the federal trial over the constitutionality of Proposition 8 should be videotaped and made available for public consumption on the internet. U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker stated that the nature and importance of the Prop. 8 case warrants “widespread distribution.”
If the 9th Circuit upholds the recommendation, the Prop. 8 case will be all over YouTube just minutes after it happened. It would be the first time the 9th Circuit has permitted what amounts to televising a trial.
As the article demonstrates, both sides have voiced strong opinions on whether or not televising the trial is appropriate. Prop. 8 advocates strongly oppose the step, noting that introducing a television audience might lead witnesses to water down their testimony so as not to offend or look foolish. Those arguing that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional argue that to the contrary, the events that occur in the courtroom concern the public's interest and as a consequence, the public has a right to be able to monitor the proceedings.
I have been an outspoken advocate for granting gays the right to marry, and I have voiced my support for the Boies-Olson superteam that is leading the charge against Prop 8. In my eyes, I think that Proposition 8 constitutes a violation of the 14th Amendment rights of every homosexual who wishes to wed and, in doing so, attain the economic benefits offered to all heterosexuals who marry. Beyond the legal issues, I think that Proposition 8 is an abominable piece of legislation that will come back to haunt those associated with it in future elections. That said, on this particular point, I am inclined to agree with those arguing against allowing cameras into a federal court of appeals. The C-SPAN effect can be profound, and judge, jury, lawyers, and witnesses would almost all undoubtedly change their behavior if they know that footage of their participation might end up on Olbermann or Hannity. I'm all for transparency, but this isn't Law and Order....it's a real trial involving real people and a very real constitution. What we do not need is a judge playing to the camera in hopes of raising his chances to secure a promotion, or a lawyer or witness worried about managing their public profile.
Transparency does not require allowing the public to witness the trial in real time, or at all, for that matter. Allowing reporters and the public to attend the trial, and posting a transcript and an audio recording, as the Supreme Court does, ensures that the public knows what happens in the courtroom without jeopardizing the integrity of the trial by turning it into some sort of made for television drama.