According to Taranto, on the article Disorder in the Court, he builds a profound interest in the U.S Supreme Court which has on no occasion had a keen interest on the opinion of the oft-debated question of whether the oral arguments should be televised or videotaped. A vague aversion to the idea could have been acknowledgeable except it could have been impossible to articulate a clear argument to support it. The case that was being handled at the time was a minor case which could not have made it to the news headlines. However, the event in which a U.S citizen stood up to protest on the court’s 2010 ruling in Citizen United in the middle of the oral argument which is one of the rare occurrences in history, crystallized the debate on the eligibility of videotaping of the Supreme Court proceedings. But has we know, sneaking cameras past the daunting court security is something that has never in the past occurred hence the breach in the security could have made big news to the media. Wegman, on (Supreme) Court TV and the Magically Disappearing Protest describes the event in detail and the eventual arrest of the protester yet, the court pretended like nothing ever happened. This was realized when the routine posting of the official transcript of the court and audio recordings on its website every Fridays. The events in question were not encompassed in the court’s official transcript of the oral argument and also snipped off the audio recordings made by the court. There you have it, all was set to appear as normal as ever with silence and respect of the court being put back in the front like. It is an imperative reminder that whatever that happens in the court room is the public’s business; everything in its totality. The odd and cou... ... middle of paper ... ...p., 19 Mar. 2014. Web. 20 Mar. 2014. . Taranto, James. "Disorder in the Court The case against televising oral arguments.." The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 3 Mar. 2014. Web. 20 Mar. 2014. . Wegman, Jesse. "(Supreme) Court TV and the Magically Disappearing Protest." Taking Note Supreme Court TV and the Magically Disappearing Protest Comments. The New York Times, 28 Feb. 2014. Web. 20 Mar. 2014. .
The majority opinion of the court was the most accurate for this case because of the fact that Johnson was expressing his personal beliefs and opinions. The 5 to 4 decision was the most constitutional and well thought through judgment. Johnson was not threatening the United States in any way, let alone the people of the United States. Although society may find expressive events hostile, the government cannot ban it because it’s expressive conduct and it underlies in one’s First Amendment rights. The majority opinion was the most constitutionally accurate, but one may think, does our Constitution need revising?
To the extent possible and practical, it is recommended that the court conduct meetings and phone conferences concerning media requests on the record and make all resulting orders on the record and/or in
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
Throughout history there have always been issues concerning judicial courts and proceedings: issues that include everything from the new democracy of Athens, Greece, to the controversial verdict in the Casey Anthony trial as well as the Trayvon Martin trial. One of the more recent and ever changing issues revolves around cameras being allowed and used inside courtrooms. It was stated in the Handbook of Court Administration and Management by Stephen W. Hays and Cole Blease Graham, Jr. that “the question of whether or not to allow cameras in American courtrooms has been debated for nearly fifty years by scholars, media representatives, concerned citizens, and others involved in the criminal justice system.” The negatives that can be attached to the presence of cameras inside a courtroom are just as present, if not more present, than the positives that go hand-in-hand with the presence of cameras.
The use of the jury in some trials shows how the everyday atmosphere is brought into the courtroom. Jurors have a part in deciding the outcomes of cases and as a collective decide the extent of the harm in the case. They apply socially accepted norms to the courtroom when determining the enforceable situation of the alleged criminal (Garfinkel: 104). A juror is asked to be a blank slate when entering the courtroom. However, what needs to taken into consideration is the fact that each individual carries his or her own values, bias and beliefs in any situation. They decide to what extent the case at hand goes against the standards of the normal individual. The definition of normal in this case is subjected to the context in which the event is
Thompson, Ellia. "Courtroom cameras: issue moves in and out of focus." The Quill Sept. 2004: 7+. Academic OneFile. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.
Richey, Warren. "Free Speech Outside Supreme Court: Ban on Protests in Plaza Struck..." Christian Science Monitor. 12 Jun. 2013: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 06 Jan. 2014.
“Witness for the Prosecution” superbly demonstrated a realist view of the operating procedures in a courtroom. The actors within the courtroom were easy to identify, and the steps transitioned smoothly from the arrest to the reading of the verdict. The murder trial of Leonard Vole provided realistic insight into how laws on the books are used in courtroom proceedings. With the inferior elements noted, the superior element of the court system in “Witness for the Prosecution” was the use of the adversary system. Both sides of the adversary system were flawlessly protrayed when the prosecution and defense squared off in the courtroom.
“Nowadays in the modern world, society if affected by more things we can think of. Society is affected by movies, TV shows, TV reality shows, magazines, and books. A report was recorded over a six-month period about Television shows and daily news broadcasts. From September 1, 1999 through February 29, 2000; The Grand Rapid Institute recorded and viewed a few programs and at the end of the month the Institute tallied up the number of letters sent after a recorded program and it showed how unfair the programs were and how people became a democracy to let them know” (TV News 1).
The architecture of the courtroom establishes clear power disparities within the courtroom setting. The physical dimensions of Courtroom 5.1 were organised in such a way that the hierarchal nature of the court is visually clear from the moment you step into the room. The stratification of power amongst the courtroom actors is displayed through the ‘structural elevation’ of the seating (Carlen, 1976, pp. 50). The magistrate is seated at the uppermost level at the bench facing the defendant, solicitors and public gallery. This particular positioning demonstrates pre-eminence which allows com...
Sure having court proceedings on T.V. can help us really understand and become educated about them.
The courtroom is a place where cases are heard and deliberated as evidence is produced to prove whether the accused person is innocent or guilty. Different courtroom varies depending on the hierarchy and the type of cases, they deliberate upon in the courtroom. In the United States, the courts are closely interlinked through a hierarchical system at either the state or the federal level. Therefore, the court must have jurisdiction before it takes upon a case, deliberate, and come up with a judgment on it. The criminal case is different from the civil cases, especially when it comes to the court layout. In this essay, I will explain how I experienced a courtroom visit and the important issues are learnt from the visit.
Zelezny, J. (2011). Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints, and the Modern Media. Boston, MA: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning.
If there is a single most important event that happened in television that caused major ramifications, it would be the Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” during the halftime show at Super Bowl 38. In this incident Janet Jackson exposed her right breast. Worst of all the Super Bowl was broadcast on CBS, a non-cable free channel, where censorship is pushed to the extreme. An estimated 140 million people were watching the halftime show when the incident occurred (Davidson 2004). In response the FCC fined CBS $550,000, which is the largest fine ever handed out by the FCC to a T.V. broadcasting station (Davidson 2004). The 227 CBS independent affiliates were left un-fined (Davidson 2004). This one event probably had the most severe consequences ever, and caused an onslaught of censorship to follow, and spread into every aspect of American’s lives.
In conclusion, though the media serves as a platform to relay legal proceedings, it is evident that the media can pose serious negative influences upon the accused. Undue, unjust, and misconstrued comments by media houses will eventually lead to an unfair and prejudiced trial. Hence, the media must be regulated by exerting the law of contempt of court to prevent interference in the courts administration of justice including to reprove those found in violation of the basic code of conduct. However, the media can utilize the defence options available if he/she can prove otherwise.