ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> SCOTUSBLOG

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Federal Judiciary

: SCOTUSBLOG

Delay in broadcast of Prop. 8 trial

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

ADVERTISEMENTS

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered at least a two-day postponement of any broadcast of the trial — opening later in the day in San Francisco — of the constitutional challenge to California’s “Prop. 8″ ban on same-sex marriage.  The delay, issued over the dissent of Justice Stephen G. Breyer, will last at least until 4 p.m. Washington time on Wednesday, the Court said.  The ruling only allows “real-time streaming” of video of the trial to other rooms within the San Francisco courthouse, and not to other courthouses in the Ninth Circuit and in New York, and not to YouTube for Internet webcast.

 

The order not only blocks the trial judge’s original order permitting delayed broadcast of the trial proceedings, but also ”any additional order permitting broadcast of the proceedings,” pending further action by the Justices.   In his brief dissent, Justice Breyer said he was not persuaded that the supporters of Prop. 8, who sought to block any televising of the trial, would suffer harm from such broacasts.

The fact that the Court will take more time to consider the issue is an indication that the broadcasting may yet be allowed.  But the mere fact that it has imposed even a temporary delay would not appear to be an encouraging sign for the prospect that the video will be seen outside the courthouse.

Although the Court provided no explanation of its decision to issue a stay lasting only through Wednesday, one possible reason was that the Ninth Circuit’s chief judge, Alex Kozinski, had not signed off on the webcast on YouTube — a broadcast that would have displayed the trial far more widely than in rooms in courthouses where capacity would be limited.  The Ninth Circuit’s approval of streaming the video and audio to other courthouses did not go beyond that, and, in fact, it barred anyone from photographing or recording the electronic feeds to the other courthouses designated.

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on January 11, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0145 secs (new cache)