Webcast Public Trials
This is our chance to make history by enabling the US justice system to permit live webcasting during public trials.
The US constitution guarantees the right to a public trial and the issue today is simply to refine the meaning of "public" by recognizing a defendant's right to get the news of their trial out there online as well as through newspapers and TV programming.
A test case involvling Joel Tenenbaum, a graduate student at Boston University, has just been thrown out by the First Circuit US Court of Appeals. With enough support, we believe that we can convince this nation's lawmakers to create legislation that guarantees a permanent place at the table for Webcast news.
Joel needs our help today and we'll all benefit by extending public access to information that affects our lives on so many levels.
Let's move quickly. Please sign now and spread the word.
This is our chance to make history by enabling the US justice system to permit live webcasting during public trials.
The US constitution guarantees the right to a public trial and the issue today is simply to refine the meaning of "public" by recognizing a defendant's right to get the news of their trial out there online as well as through newspapers and TV programming.
A test case involvling Joel Tenenbaum, a graduate student at Boston University, has just been thrown out by the First Circuit US Court of Appeals. With enough support, we believe that we can convince this nation's lawmakers to create legislation that guarantees a permanent place at the table for Webcast news.
Joel needs our help today and we'll all benefit by extending public access to information that affects our lives on so many levels.
Let's move quickly. Please sign now and spread the word.
Dear Mr. President, Chief Justices, Justices, Judges, Senators, Representatives, Ladies and Gentlemen,
We the undersigned urge you to give your fullest consideration to the matter of allowing Internet Webcast Sites to join the time-honoured ranks of newspapers and TV stations in disseminating the news during a public trial.
We understand that The Constitution of the United States guarantees the right to a public trial and the issue today is simply the need to refine the meaning of "public".
Furthermore, we believe that justice would be served by recognizing a defendant's right to have the news of their trial published online as well as through newspapers and TV programming.
A test case involvling Joel Tenenbaum, a graduate student at Boston University, has just been thrown out by the First Circuit US Court of Appeals (April 17, 2009), and it is our fervent hope that you will take steps immediately to protect Mr. Tenenbaum's right to a public trial that includes Internet coverage. Such action in this case will endure as a brilliant example of the wisdom enshrined in The Constitution and practiced by this generation of our nation's lawmakers.
Please accept our appreciation for your willingness to serve America through this visionary and courageous act of leadership.
Yours most respectfully and sincerely,
The Undersigned
Our republic is based on laws. Some times we have to get involved in the creation of these laws to keep and strengthen what we have.
The Internet is changing everything. The law and its application needs to be broadcast so that the public understands the rules by which they are living and the "rule of law" and why and how it works. And if the public doesn't like what they see, then they can work with their legislatures and other elected officials to change it. Broadcasting trials enhances democracy and makes government more transparent and available.
Yes we need live webcasting during public trials.
I was sued by directv and much of what Nesson said is why I could not defend even though I would have loved my day in a trial to prove my innocence. But when false civil suits are written, even the innocent are made to settle, pay money to settle, sign agreements which take away constitutional rights because they do not have the money to litigate. There is far more at stake here then copyright when people loose constitutional rights in confidential settlement. Funny thing about our American system, no one is concerned about loosing constitutional rights unless it is them who is loosing them when forced to sign them away. Not even government protects constitutional rights under confidential settlement any longer. To stop this unlawful use of our court system I have started a grass roots effort located here: http://theft-by-copyright-owner.com/default.htm When people are loosing there constitutional rights and liberties to corporation oppression, then we better begin looking inside the court at judges who are assisting this effort. An in court camera may be the way to seee inside the courtroom.
Because these companies could potentially persue the same course of action here in australia, the world needs to see the standards of evidence used in these cases and gain a better idea of the difference between "intellectual property" and real property. Understand how few rights that they really do have under the law with reguards to many of the things they think they have bought and paid for. and what sort of control the media companies have managed to buy for themselves. "Intellectual property" should more acurately be called Intellectual Monopoly and it i am hoping that this case may bring more public awareness on this issue
The RIAA shouldn't be against this, publicity is what they wanted all the time. Bring in a new generation and broadcast the trial, this is not a unique case, it has been affecting many others around that country in the form of the same settlement letters.
Allowing the broadcast of the trial would allow average people to have a venue to understand how some of these piracy claims are evaluated in the courts. Right now many of them just receive settlement letters and are scared by large sums of money in to paying slightly smaller large sums of money when the RIAA might now even have a case or the right person. As of now it is the RIAA's word that they have enough evidence to sue, and they are using to intimidate individuals. If this trial is broadcasted and archived in a format (video) available to lay people they can better understand RIAA claims and evaluate the claims for themselves.
It's wrong for the music industry to take advantage of people like that. This case could help so many people in the same situation and who are being charged an outrageous amount of money.
I am a musician and I believe it is important to not punish those individuals who are just trying to expand their musical knowledge.
I'm Joel Tenenbaum. There are 35,000 people in the same situation as me and millions more who could be. They deserve to know the results of a public proceeding paid for by their tax dollars.
2 words...first amendment
As a law student who cannot often just 'go' to the courthouse to view trials for pleasure, I would love to see public trial webcasting. Therre is a huge difference between reading the opinion and actually watching talented attorney's in action, as well as the judge, and the general demeanor of the courtroom. This is an excellent tool for students everywhere, and needs to be considered.
As a citizen I try to be informed of legal matters. However I don't follow TV news or newspapers because the quality of journalism has gotten sadly worse and it's actively harmful to try to get good information from either; generally speaking they are incorrect at best and a vector for misinformation at worst. I do keep up with things on the Internet and it allows me to stay informed while working or traveling or what have you.
If the constitution guarantees the right to a public trial the burden of proof should be on the government as to why any particular method of publicity should not be allowed.
This would make everyone honest at trial and keep the public involved with matters such as the Loel T. Case with the RIAA
Even in my country, population only 5m, there are already similar cases of copyright infringement threat letters. We too would like to have access to the trial for the sake of education and a balanced perspective to the issues.
If the public domain shift to a new area, shouldn't the law follow that? The public domain now holds the Internet in it's grasps. Therefore any public hearing in a courtroom should be watched online live.
i really was foolish enough to think governments ran the country,imagine my amazement whn i discovered it was hollywood and the record companies !and obviously they also run the court system !! land of the free and home of the brave?? ya right !!
I believe that the same rules that apply to print journalism and television and radio should apply to the webcasting of trials. Our justice system is based on the principle that the system is open to the scrutiny of the public.
This issue is important to me bacause, if something is happening in USA it can be happening in Poland.
Equal justice.
Because the MAFIAA's (MPAA/RIAA's) farce has gone on for too long. They deserve every bit of negative attention they get.
Public trials should always we webcasted. There is no better way to go public at present.
Its about time we (the fractious public) use our techonologies to increase our capacity as an ethical, transparent, democratic and diverse society. Citizen action like this is constantly needed to construct democratic forums- corporate interests will not be enough to develop freedom without these initiatives.
I feel that everyone should be able to view a trial that is proclaimed public - and in the most efficient way possible.
I want to be educated!
in a world where the public is accused of ridding themselves of their own privacy, where internet is the norm, it's nothing but reasonable to have trials that aren't a secret anyway to be broadcasted on the internet. it is, to say the least, highly relevant to the public to know that their trials are fair.
Why is this issue important to you? This gives us the opportunity to be FAIR and have some fall back. Most poor souls go to court alone and with zero support. It's about time someone is treated with equality and this will open peoples eyes.
Would you please cite any cases or arguments of your own that might have direct bearing on the outcome we're seeking? Thanks.
If people are supposed to follow the law it should be as open and clear as possible, this would be a perfect example of showing each and everyone exactly how our laws work. Lets educate!
The plaintiffs in this case clearly have something to hide. We already know what it is but only by webcasting this trial will the news get out to the wider public. Now is our chance to redefine public in an internet-based society.
None
I am interested in witnessing potentially historic trial such as these, and don't have the money to fly to their respective locations. Technologies such as webcasting will allow everyone to witness and be involved in courts throught the nation
In today's technologically saturated environment, the ability to conduct a "public" trial has evolved. The meaning and indeed intent, of the framers and subsequent legislatures to air publically sanctioned judgement is premised upon the ability of the public to see, hear and understand the proceedings under whose ultimate authority such judicially imposed decisions are conducted. Why wouldn't the court WANT to improve that access, through the use of such technology is beyond me, and suggests that there's a palpable fear of something...but just what THAT might be, I do not know. Nevertheless this must be remedied, as we now live in a much more connected world that increasingly communicates through internet technologies. Another recent trend in the decline of "public" forums like newspapers is emblematic of this phenomenon. Indeed some newspapers are now going ENTIRELY online in response to this trend, how can courts ignore this reality and desperately cling to the past? This must change and the pacifying rhetoric of..."in time this will happen" does little justice to those appearing before courts today.
The US constitution guarantees the right to a public trial and in this day and age, "public" cannot be limited to those who have the means to physically travel to the trial itself. Moreover, the public's right to public information cannot and should not be hampered by the RIAA's self-interests.
I think transparency in the legal system is one of the most important issues facing our society. It is clear to me that arguments against transparency in this case are spurious, serving merely to help the public relations machine of an all-too-powerful organization bringing a case against a single citizen. If they are scared of the ramifications of the proceedings, they should not have brought the case at all.
As someone who has a vested interest in this case and yet is all the way in California, having the trial webcast public would allow me and others like me to learn from it. I've grown up with the internet and that is where I get all of my information, it's not fair that the older media sites have the rights to broadcast what it happening but not the media that directly affects the younger generations.
I am concerned about leaving in the hands of individual judges the decision over what kind of information gets broadcast on TV and what makes it to the internet. Alternate news sources are empowering people everywhere by creating access to information where once there was none. What happens during a public trial is something that touches all of our lives and I want to protect our constitutional right to making that news public in the broadest and most accessible way that there is.
- View Signatures:
- |<
- <
- 74
- >
- >|
