Making the case, again, for Cameras in the Courtoom.

Two horrific criminal cases here in the Denver area have me raising the issue of cameras in the courtroom, or in too many cases NO cameras in the courtroom.

I begin with the mass-shooting in Aurora. James Holmes is charged with shooting 12 people to death and wounding 58 others in a movie theater. Other than his initial appearance we the people have been denied live/taped coverage of proceedings. What we get are "Artist's Sketches" or in my opinion, cartoons.

                                                               (Courtesy: Denver Post)

Another sad case involves Austin Reed Sigg, charged with the abduction and subsequent murder of Jessica Ridgway.

Both have made the beginning of a line line of court appearances as the "justice" system drags on to a conclusion, we hope, likely years down the line.

Judges make the decision whether or not to allow cameras in courtrooms. Judges are either appointed to the bench by people we elect, or are elected themselves. They are servants of the people, not the other way around. But they are the undisputed rulers of their domains and in too many cases don't allow cameras, and by extension we to see the legal process as it happens, either live or taped.

Here are the current laws, by state as to access to courts by cameras.

As a 4-term board member of the Radio-Televison News Directors Association, I twice represented RTNDA (Now RTDNA) twice at the National Judicial College in Reno making the case for full access by cameras to courts ranging from Federal to Local. While many judges have saw the proverbial light, many have not. The most frequent push back I always got was that judges didn't want lawyers "showboating" in front of the cameras. Really? As opposed to showboating in front of juries and judges themselves?

The worst offender of course, is the highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court. Other than the rarest of occasions with audio being allowed, nary a camera has made inside the room where the most important legal precedents of our nation are set. The Supreme Court Justices are appointed by an elected President and approved by an elected Senate. Servants all of we the people.

Coming full circle to the Holmes case, RTDNA Executive Director makes a clear and concise case in how a"Colorado Court got it wrong."  I've known Mike and worked with him for a long time and his points are well taken. Today's cameras as incredibly small. Surveillance cameras are everywhere, in private and public buildings, stop lights and the list goes on. Ironically courts use them in legal cases as evidence.

They just don't allow them to document the process itself. And that, is wrong.

The courts belong to us. The judges work for us. The time is long overdue for them to realize just that. Nothing about the judicial process should be cartoonish. Yet sadly, it is.

Brian Olson
Owner/Consultant
Conversation Starters Public Relations
"We start the conversations about you"

When is more...too much?

"When is more...to much?"

That's a line from the most recent edition of CSI New York said by CSI Danny Messer. (Carmine Giovinazzo.) The plot line involved another one of the CSI's witnessing a murder live while on a chat room. Danny, in the scene, is talking to his wife about the huge potential dangers of the Internet, all created by the plethora of technology available to us all.

There are a myriad of pipelines available to all of us to post just about anything we want. Most, but not all of us use these pipelines in positive and creative ways. Most.

It brought to mind the current case of the college student who killed himself after a "friend" posted a video of him in a sexual act; a case of "Cyber Bullying" as profiled in this report on Minnesota Public Radio.

CSI New York isn't the first television plot line involving online crime.

So when does Cyber Bullying cross the line established by the 1st Amendment? For now, it seems the law says it's ok to yell fire in a digital theater. Not so much in a real one. There are other examples. The Washington Post for example has very strict rules about fairness and making sure both sides are heard in a story in its print edition. Their online edition however plays by different rules. Many stories posted are ones-sided to the extreme. But their position is that the online edition is essentially a bookshelf and they are not responsible for the "books" on those shelves. It's a lesson I learned the hard way some time ago.

All of course by the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court starts its latest session today, and free speech is first on the docket.

Free speech is a precious thing. The 1st Amendment makes us unique in the world. It's worked wonderfully for a few hundred years. At least up until now. The good news is everyone has access to the Internet. The bad news is everyone has access to the Internet.

As a member of the Board of Directors of the Radio-Digital-Television News Association (RTDNA) I spoke in defense of the 1st Amendment across the country including twice at the National Judicial College. Thankfully, the 1st Amendment isn't going anywhere.

Sadly, abuses of it aren't going anywhere either. How we deal with it all remains very unclear.

Brian Olson
Conversation Starters LLC
"We start the conversation about you"