Court blocks video coverage of Prop. 8 trial

Los Angeles Times | Jan. 11, 2010 | 8:28 a.m | LAT

[granite]

The Supreme Court today blocked video coverage of the trial in San Francisco testing the constitutionality of California's Prop. 8 and its ban on same-sex marriage.

[granite]

No link yet. I will post it as soon as it is up.

[granite]

More soon at: http://www.latimes.com

[edcoil]

When the list of Donors to prop 8 came out the militant gays attacked their businesses and homes.

The witnesses need to be protected.

[sand lake bar]

Ha! Cue sad trombone music!
http://www.sadtrombone.com/

[rockinqsranch]

It’s a good ruling in my opinion for multiple reasons.

[WallStreetCapitalist]

No they don't. If it is a deeply held religious conviction, people should be willing to shout it from the rooftop and not be ashamed of it. It's like we live in a nation of cowards. Freedom of speech does not guarantee protection of freedom of consequences. If I walk into the ghetto as a rich, white guy and throw around the "n" word, I'm probably not going to make it out in very good shape (if at all). I have the Constitutional right to use that word, but that's not going to protect me from the ramifications of using that right.

I am for open government. Just look at health care where Obama broke his campaign promise to have open sessions and now the merged bill is being brought together behind closed doors. "Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant." I say throw open the doors, turn on the cameras, and let the nation talk about this. If we did it more often, half of the backroom deals is Washington would be dead on arrival.

Everyone wants to stand up for their beliefs, but only if they can do it from the comfort of their reading chair, by the fireplace, and without any dissent. Our founding fathers put themselves at risk of being hung by the British and you're worried about property damage?

[uscga77]

Nice ideal but not always realistic. I wouldn’t want you for my attorney. You’d hang me and my family out to dry. You also miss the point. The attorneys want to enable their witnesses to speak without fear of retribution.

[Right Cal Gal]

We’ve already seen the vicious nature of the anti-8 forces. And I still want to know under what authority anyone should have to take a witness stand and have to explain why they don’t support gay marriage or why they voted as they did on a SECRET ballot.

[BenKenobi]

Well I agree with you that’s the ideal, but sometimes other people get hurt who didn’t voice that opinion. Personally, they can do what they want to me, I don’t care. I’ve been vocal in support for Prop 8, and opposed to these shenanigans to get rid of it.

If they want to blacklist me and stalk and intimidate me, what are they hoping to do? Change my mind that sodomy is perversion? Good luck sir.

[Tzimisce]

More of that openess and transparency we keep hearing about?

[Right Cal Gal]

I don’t doubt for one minute that this was Walker’s way of intimidating the Pro Prop 8 witnesses.

[ivyleaguebrat]

The names of the defense witnesses are already a matter of public record. Their testimony will be reported in the media as soon as they give it. I’m not sure why having it appear on YouTube renders them any more subject to harassment than they already are.

Then again, if I were a witness in any trial on any subject, I don’t think I’d want video posted on YouTube. I’m not sure exactly why, but it would make me uneasy to say the least.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

edcoil: The witnesses need to be protected.

WallStreetCapitalist: No they don't.

I smell a fascist...

The country is at war and in the middle of economic meltdown, yet these clowns are cloistered safely in their court, trying to overturn free elections and arguing about their wee wees?

WallStreetCapitalist is a traitor troll, like most of the traitors in the legal profession, all you care about is money and to hell with the country...