Kudos to the SJC for recognizing the changing nature of the media:
The state’s highest court today updated its rules for media coverage of trials and other court proceedings in response to changes in technology used by the media and the rise of bloggers and citizen journalism….
The rules permit electronics — such as laptops — in the courtroom but also require anyone seeking to use the high-tech gear to register with the SJC’s Public Information Office.
To qualify for a press pass, people must show they “are regularly engaged in the reporting and publishing of news or information about matters of public interest. This would include citizen journalists who meet this standard,” the court said.
The new rules allow a third camera in a courtroom — a video camera potentially being used by a citizen journalist — in addition to the cameras from television stations and newspapers that have been permitted in courtrooms for years.
Now if the federal courts would finally let a camera in the door, we’d be all set.
ramuel-m-raagas says
News
stomv says
I find them really distracting, in a way that video cameras and crayons are not. For that reason alone, I’m down with the camera ban.
In fairness, cameras are more quiet than they used to be — digital cameras don’t have to click, don’t have a whirring motor to load film, etc. I suppose there’s no reason for cameras to make much noise at all at this point.
Still, it’s very easy to forget about the artist, and it’s strangely pretty easy to forget about a video camera, especially if it’s unmanned. But handheld cameras attract attention.
Matt says
This blogger says YA!
tedf says
Just a few days ago, I asked the First Circuit for permission to liveblog an oral argument to be held in April and was denied permission on the grounds that liveblogging is not permitted by the Court’s policy. On the other hand, I received permission from the D. Mass. to liveblog a hearing in January. One of these days, the federal courts will come around.