Here is a civil dis idea:
I noticed the judge wouldn't let nick pan his camera when filming this video at russell's august trial in keene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcE8PZ6xAzU
The judge also asked nick personal questions and told him he had to answer them.
Any videographer, especially a mainstreamer, would rightly go ballistic over such a draconian panning restriction. after fifteen years in tv I've never seen it imposed on any videographer in any courtroom. i've gone from being a tentative fan of this judge to an opponent
so maybe this would be good...go back to this courtroom following (as much as possible) all of their procedures and rules. but insist you won't comply with the no-pan order. insist they will let you pan or lock you up.
maybe i will do this. This could be part of "outlaw puppeteer part 5" perhaps.
a thought...part of the no pan restriction might be to stop videographers from getting shots that would put someone in danger, etc. also i wouldn't want to tape a defendent who prefers I not.
so maybe it would be appropriate to show flexibility in terms of exactly who I videotape...but insist on panning.
presumably this would be something to do when one of our folks is in trouble there, rather than just some random cases.
but i've been wrong before. how many different people do they usually try in a day there?
oh here was another thought i had. i the videographer could wear a "report court abuses here" tshirt
i might want to bring two cameras.
do they have any restrictions on cell phones in there?
At the time the 'no pan' rule was brought up, the only people in the room were Russell, supporters and city workers, so don't think he was trying to protect anyone. When others have been in the room, he's asked that only the one person be filmed, not other defendants.
So the judge would just ask you to leave. Would you civil disobedience be to refuse to leave?
I remember the judge saying that the videographer could choose a shot and keep it, but couldn't pan the camera. This suggests to me that the judge didn't care what or who was being videorecorded, only that the camera not pan; i.e., that there was not even an excuse of trying to protect someone from being filmed - he was just trying to make it hard on the videographer. At least, that's what I got out of it.
I do agree, though, that it might be a good and friendly idea to get permission of everyone you do record before releasing the vid on YouTube.
what if there are 100 people in the room?
Quote from: Russell Kanning on August 31, 2008, 09:25 AM NHFT
what if there are 100 people in the room?
I presume the judge would say something like "if you can only fit 50 people without panning, then choose which 50 and don't pan." I'm not saying their rule makes any sense, I'm just relating what I remember the judge said in the video.
I would suggest it only be important to get the consensus of those there not of their free will.
The people in court do not have a right to their privacy. They are in a public place, where what happens gets listed in the newspaper as public record. Video is just another form of public record. The rule about not panning the audience is to make videographers uncomfortable and obedient.
That's one thing, but he didn't want you panning the trial area either! It's all about control and consent. I hope Dave does this disobedience; I told Lee about it today.
Can you imagine the videos and news articles about someone being put in jail for panning a camera in a court room?
The reason he probably issued the order was because he saw it as intimidating for the witness to watch as a camera focuses in on them...how dramatic. Either way, no excuse. Sounds like prime CD.
I disagree. The witnesses in the case were police. He issued the order because he wants to micromanage our actions as much as possible. He's a control freak.
Looking at the video, it could be that the moving camera was distracting the judge.
Judges have to pay attention to every word spoken by both the lawyers and the witnesses. They can't really miss a thing because an objection may be raised and they have to be able to respond. Imagine you are sitting up on the bench and someone in the back of the room is swiveling the camera.
I think the judge was rude about it. He should have given a reason for the 'rule'. But I wouldn't assume it's because he was a control freak.
Quote from: jzacker on September 02, 2008, 02:57 PM NHFT
Looking at the video, it could be that the moving camera was distracting the judge.
Judges have to pay attention to every word spoken by both the lawyers and the witnesses. They can't really miss a thing because an objection may be raised and they have to be able to respond. Imagine you are sitting up on the bench and someone in the back of the room is swiveling the camera.
I think the judge was rude about it. He should have given a reason for the 'rule'. But I wouldn't assume it's because he was a control freak.
Have you ever seen a camera pan? It doesn't spin in circles; or even move 180, 90, or 60 degrees. The camera pans 30 degrees from left to right at most. If me moving a camera is distracting, then an audience member itching his nose is distracting.
Well what did the court say when you asked them about the no-panning rule?
Quote from: jzacker on September 02, 2008, 03:31 PM NHFT
Well what did the court say when you asked them about the no-panning rule?
I only talked to Larry, the court clerk. He said the rule was to protect anyone from being taped that didn't want to be. When I pushed him on this issue, such as the fact that nobody else was in the room, he just fell back on "Well this is a NH District Court rule, not a Keene rule, and this judge has been consistent. You're talking to the wrong people if you want to protest it."
(i) Restrictions . Unless otherwise ordered by the presiding judge, the following standing orders shall govern.
(1) No flash or other lighting devices will be used.
(2) Set up and dismantling of equipment is prohibited when court is in session.
(3) No camera movement during court session.
etc
"Movement", now there's a generic term.
Quote from: Coconut on September 01, 2008, 10:37 PM NHFT
The people in court do not have a right to their privacy. They are in a public place, where what happens gets listed in the newspaper as public record. Video is just another form of public record. The rule about not panning the audience is to make videographers uncomfortable and obedient.
I do see your point. But I like to think that my ethics do not fall so far as the courts.
Quote from: Giggan on September 02, 2008, 11:56 AM NHFT
The reason he probably issued the order was because he saw it as intimidating for the witness to watch as a camera focuses in on them...how dramatic. Either way, no excuse. Sounds like prime CD.
He wasn't worried about the cops getting intimidated ... they outnumbered us ... and had guns.
He didn't like the idea that the sham was being recorded and wanted to hassle him on anything. They don't like the sense they were getting from us ... that we were not their slaves.
Inbound to judge burke via private "Canario Courier...."
What: Attempted "Illegal camera panning"
Where: Keene District Court, 3 Washington Street, Keene, New Hampshire
When: Friday, Sept. 26, 2008. 7:45 a.m.
How: Videographer will attempt to man, and pan, his video camera during trial of Keene freedom activist. Camera movement is forbidden under
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/dmcr/dmcr-1_4.htm
And Judge Edward Burke has said he'll begin enforcing the ban.
Why: There are two objectives...
1) Document Nick Ryder's controversial refusal to pay traffic fine (something that can't be done well without panning the camera)
2) Protest - and draw attention to - an unacceptable, actively enforced court rule that unnecessarily limits freedom of press
Who: Dave Ridley, 42, Manchester videographer
Open letter for Judge Edward Burke
Presiding Justice, Keene District Court:
Dear Judge Burke:
Your restraint and politeness in the handling of David Krouse's civil disobedience case this spring...turned me into an unlikely fan. It was a reminder to liberty lovers that judges in New Hampshire tend to be less violent than those in other places.
However I'm concerned regarding your stated intent to begin enforcing a bizarre rule against video camera panning. In my fifteen years of service as a TV news videographer, I've never seen anything like it. To tell a videographer he can't pan or tilt his camera...that's like telling a writer she can't hold a pen. It violates the spirit of a "speedy and *public* trial." That's dangerous.
Apparently this is a district court regulation, but it's not acceptable and must be openly challenged. Unfortunately, I don't have the skills, money or time to effectively use 'the means the state has provided me for changing it." So I'll follow Thoreau's example and undertake constructive disobedience.
Over the next few days, I will go through the usual process that a videographer undertakes to film in your chambers. I'll seek clearance to record Nick Ryder's speeding ticket hearing, currently scheduled for 8:30 a.m. September 26th. In the absence of emergencies or illness, I'll attempt to enter the courtroom with my camera. I'll try to follow any reasonable rules - and perhaps some unreasonable - that you may wish to impose. I'll operate as unobtrusively as possible.
But I will not comply with the "pan ban," or any rule that intolerably restricts a videographer's ability to document this taxpayer-funded event.
If you forbid me from entering the courtroom with a camera, I'll ignore the ban and repeatedly attempt peaceable entry. If allowed in, but ordered to cease panning, I'll respectfully refuse to comply with the command. If ordered to leave the courtroom for any reason that seems unacceptable, I will politely decline. I'm ready to undergo arrest or detention, if that's what it takes to bring attention to this First Amendment matter.
This is happening, not becuase of your decent treatment of Krouse, nor your allowance of cameras. I respect and appreciate those things; they were almost enough to stop me from bothering you with this. But your court's unacceptable regulations on videographers, and your statement to Ryder indicating that you will begin enforcing them....makes this act of constructive disobedience imperitive.
You have various courses of action to pick from, but in the end...you will either allow me to aim and operate my camera in the courtroom or use force against a harmless citizen.
Yours,
Dave Ridley
RidleyReport.com
(addie, contact info)
Bring in several cameras, and set each at a slightly different angle?
Not so much civil disobedience, as simply demonstrating how stupid such rules are, because they are so easily thwarted...
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on September 15, 2008, 01:10 PM NHFT
Bring in several cameras, and set each at a slightly different angle?
Not so much civil disobedience, as simply demonstrating how stupid such rules are, because they are so easily thwarted...
Joe
It would actually be CD to bring two cameras. The "judge" claims he only allows one.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 15, 2008, 03:39 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on September 15, 2008, 01:10 PM NHFTBring in several cameras, and set each at a slightly different angle?
Not so much civil disobedience, as simply demonstrating how stupid such rules are, because they are so easily thwarted...
It would actually be CD to bring two cameras. The "judge" claims he only allows one.
Ah, missed that part.
Bolt two cameras together into one box, and claim that it's now one camera?
We could get creative with this :)
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on September 15, 2008, 03:43 PM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on September 15, 2008, 03:39 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on September 15, 2008, 01:10 PM NHFTBring in several cameras, and set each at a slightly different angle?
Not so much civil disobedience, as simply demonstrating how stupid such rules are, because they are so easily thwarted...
It would actually be CD to bring two cameras. The "judge" claims he only allows one.
Ah, missed that part.
Bolt two cameras together into one box, and claim that it's now one camera?
We could get creative with this :)
Joe
Are you in Keene? If not, how long until you're here?
Quote from: Coconut on September 15, 2008, 04:08 PM NHFTAre you in Keene? If not, how long until you're here?
I'm near Concord. I probably end up visiting Keene about twice per year.
Anyway, I don't intentionally enter court buildings.
Joe
Is there a speed limit to determine when it's "panning"? You could put it on a telescope mount. See if he notices it moving 90 degrees in 15 minutes or so.
Quote from: KBCraig on September 15, 2008, 10:46 PM NHFT
Is there a speed limit to determine when it's "panning"? You could put it on a telescope mount. See if he notices it moving 90 degrees in 15 minutes or so.
Except that the point to panning is to cover the event as best as possible, not to test the judge's geometry.
Added to the Free Keene Calendar
http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=133.msg783#msg783
okie this is tomorrow... things happening fast this month
Since it is not possible to fax or email judge burke would someone be willing to hand deliver this to his office at a point of convenience? I dont have a printer to snail mail him a decent note.
----
10/2/08
Judge Burke: Wanted to commend you for your handling of the courtroom events on 9/26. Thanks for showing respect for freedom of the press and above all, for having the guts to admit an overly strict interpretation of the rules regarding camera movement.
Your staff was courteous and accommodating as well. Would that all representatives of government functioned in this manner at all times. Given enough effort and sacrifice, perhaps someday they will.
Yours,
Dave Ridley
RidleyReport.com
Manchester