Has the court "revoked" our "right" to freedom of the press in the Keene Courthouse?
http://freekeene.com/2008/10/23/cameras-banned-from-keene-courthouse/
OK we have six days to prepare, that is just barely enough...
But I think I can do a repeat of last month and face arrest to get in there with a camera if they don't let the other guy in.
I'll start building another note for Judge Burke...
Not all hills are good ones to die on..
but this one is.
I am already committed to being arrested anyway as part of this campaign against bad state laws.
I'm shocked they did this; I thought we were all getting along so well. my guess is some other bureaucrat pressured Burke.
Dave,
I would suggest calling the court so we have first hand confirmation of the ban before planning anything. Don't want you to waste your time with a misunderstanding.
If you don't do it, I will tell them I'm setting up my camera in the usual place and they will have to forcibly remove me.
Quote from: Coconut on October 23, 2008, 09:05 PM NHFT
Dave,
I would suggest calling the court so we have first hand confirmation of the ban before planning anything. Don't want you to waste your time with a misunderstanding.
If you don't do it, I will tell them I'm setting up my camera in the usual place and they will have to forcibly remove me.
I will call them tomorrow morning and record the call.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on October 23, 2008, 09:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on October 23, 2008, 09:05 PM NHFT
Dave,
I would suggest calling the court so we have first hand confirmation of the ban before planning anything. Don't want you to waste your time with a misunderstanding.
If you don't do it, I will tell them I'm setting up my camera in the usual place and they will have to forcibly remove me.
I will call them tomorrow morning and record the call.
Very good
These allegations do come from a reliable source, Tom at candid-world. Here's some excerpts from his emails:
QuoteThe only snag is I finally tracked down the court clerk and he says the judge is not allowing cameras in the court room, apparently because of the previous events. I'm trying to get an exception as "a member of the press" but I'm not sure how far it will get me.
I said,
"The court guy is bullshitting you because you're from out of town. Previous events show they now allow everyone to bring in recording devices:
http://freekeene.com/2008/09/26/triple-civil-disobedience-success/
Just show up with your camera and you'll be fine. If not, it will make for interesting footage as all of us back you up."He wrote back:
QuoteHe's not bullshitting - I'm very aware that cameras were allowed and I told him as much. I tried to sound aware, but objective - he basically told me that the no camera rule is because "there's a group of people trying to make an issue out of 'having a right to film in the court'" and that they're revoking it because "the judge has been very lenient up until now and it's been abused".
I love the "group of people" phrase.
They really don't want people to see what happens in there ... they want people scared
Quote from: DadaOrwell on October 23, 2008, 08:42 PM NHFT
I'm shocked they did this; I thought we were all getting along so well. my guess is some other bureaucrat pressured Burke.
They don't want to let go of the feeling they are our masters.
Burke is not a good guy, I've seen him operate... he is a professional bully.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on October 24, 2008, 05:48 AM NHFT
Quote from: DadaOrwell on October 23, 2008, 08:42 PM NHFT
I'm shocked they did this; I thought we were all getting along so well. my guess is some other bureaucrat pressured Burke.
They don't want to let go of the feeling they are our masters.
Burke is not a good guy, I've seen him operate... he is a professional bully.
oh but I thought he was doing the right thing lately.
They must be mad. I can't get to freekeene.com
My admin is trying to determine what is going on. Sorry.
Anyway call is in to the "court" to clarify what is going on. I have elected to not record the call so as not to spook them. I want an answer.
one question: Should we battle for the continued ability to bring multiple cameras in, or pick the more defensible position of fighting to maintain the traditional ability of a lone pool photographer to be there?
Why cede ground? That said, I will enter the court if at least one camera and my audio recorder is allowed. Otherwise, I'm walking out.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on October 24, 2008, 09:31 AM NHFT
Why cede ground? That said, I will enter the court if at least one camera and my audio recorder is allowed. Otherwise, I'm walking out.
Then I hope at least one camera and your audio recorder is allowed, otherwise you won't be walking far. I'm not sure what the charge will be (probably contempt of court if you walk out in front of the judge), but you will certainly end up in a cage. >:(
I wonder what bail would be set for a contempt of court jailing? :o
I'd hate to see you in jail over this, but the headline is delectable: "Keene judge jails man rather than allowing camera into public trial."
What happens to FTL if you're jailed? Will Mark go it alone, or can you bring in a substitute (G. Goldsmith maybe)?
I had trouble posting the following comment under the blogpost at FreeKeene.com, so I'll post it here:
Wow! One way to proceed might be to ask to see the rule. Actually, a "rule" in a courthouse is baloney; ask to see the law or statute or whatever legal prohibition on cameras in the courthouse they claim exists. Then, we could continue by refuting the validity of restricting cameras - e.g., the public, the media - from recording public trials/arraignments/etc.
Another angle would be to point out that if cameras in the courtroom are indeed illegal, the judge himself has disobeyed the law by allowing them in the past (and, of course, there is video evidence of this :) ).
I'm also curious what's wrong with "a group of people trying to make an issue out of 'having a right to film in the court.'" Is the judge saying that people who make an issue of keeping their rights is a bad thing? Does he think that all people who make an issue about their constitutionally guaranteed rights are abusing those rights? Does the judge think that he needs to revoke all rights of all people who exercise their rights? Or is the judge merely targeting Ian?
This arbitrary show of power is unacceptable. If there's a reason for them to allow just one camera, have them talk to us like people and explain the situation, not make arbitrary rules. I have gone out of my way every time to stay out of the walking path of anyone, keeping myself in and out quickly and quietly. I show their system more respect than it deserves by standing around waiting on their time, and they decide I'm abusing their leniency?
Quote from: margomaps on October 24, 2008, 09:38 AM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on October 24, 2008, 09:31 AM NHFT
Why cede ground? That said, I will enter the court if at least one camera and my audio recorder is allowed. Otherwise, I'm walking out.
Then I hope at least one camera and your audio recorder is allowed, otherwise you won't be walking far. I'm not sure what the charge will be (probably contempt of court if you walk out in front of the judge), but you will certainly end up in a cage. >:(
I wonder what bail would be set for a contempt of court jailing? :o
I'd hate to see you in jail over this, but the headline is delectable: "Keene judge jails man rather than allowing camera into public trial."
What happens to FTL if you're jailed? Will Mark go it alone, or can you bring in a substitute (G. Goldsmith maybe)?
Whatever the bail is, I won't pay it. Nor will I sign their paperwork if someone else does - so don't pay the bail.
Mark will bring in cohosts and Julia will do the technical work. Hopefully it won't come to that, but it's up to them how tyrannical they want to be.
Quote from: Mike Barskey on October 24, 2008, 09:46 AM NHFTWow! One way to proceed might be to ask to see the rule. Actually, a "rule" in a courthouse is baloney; ask to see the law or statute or whatever legal prohibition on cameras in the courthouse they claim exists. Then, we could continue by refuting the validity of restricting cameras - e.g., the public, the media - from recording public trials/arraignments/etc.
Another angle would be to point out that if cameras in the courtroom are indeed illegal, the judge himself has disobeyed the law by allowing them in the past (and, of course, there is video evidence of this :) ).
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are no laws that deal specifically with whether someone has a
right to record a trial via audio or video. What I'm guessing is that judges are allowed (via some statue no doubt) to exercise fairly broad discretion when it comes to how their court proceedings operate. If judge Burke doesn't want to let cameras into his courtroom, the system might in fact be set up to empower him to forbid them, and to arrest anyone who disobeys his order. I hope my guesses are wrong though!
I would have also guessed that there aren't any laws prohibiting cameras from being in a public courtroom (in which case, asking the judge to "show me the law" might have helped). But I didn't consider that there would be some general, dictatorial power given to judges like "you can overrule the Bill of Rights in your courtroom." I guess it would not surprise me, but I didn't consider it.
If it is true, however, that the judge can do essentially anything, it would still make good headlines, as you said: "Keene judge jails man rather than allowing camera into public trial."
Courtrooms are probably where power is more dangerously concentrated than anywhere. A contempt of court charge seems to be nearly boundless in how a judge can interpret it. After witnessing the shams they called trials for Lauren and Kat, I don't think there's anything they could do to shock me at this point. This really does threaten to give me that sinking feeling of despair, but I'm instead going to use it however I can to inspire me to do more.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on October 24, 2008, 09:56 AM NHFT
Mark will bring in cohosts and Julia will do the technical work. Hopefully it won't come to that, but it's up to them how tyrannical they want to be.
I'd love to learn what I could do to help sometime. My availabilitiy is limited though. I'm sure Julia can do well.
Actually, I really appreciate the offer. PM me if you can come over after the show sometime in the next week, and I'll show you the ropes. I'm sure she'd appreciate the help.
I just got off the phone with Mr. Kane the "clerk". He tells me the camera ban is an "order" in regards to their trial they are insisting on having. He says he's leaving a couple copies for any media that want to come pick it up. He invited me to, but I'd rather not go down there alone. Mr. Kane refused to release information to the media (me) over the phone.
Do I understand you correctly that the camera ban applies only to this particular trial regarding the couch?
Thanks to Nick from the Ryder Report for attaining a copy of their "ORDER" (PDF) (http://freekeene.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/order_pool_coverage2008-10-24.pdf):
QuoteState of New Hampshire
Ian H. Bernard
ORDER RE: POOL COVERAGE
Rule 1.4 of the District Court Rules defines the extent to which the Court can authorize media coverage. whether by still photography, audio·only
recording. or video recording. The Court has received at least two requests for
access to th e courtroom for purposes of creating video recordings of the
proceedings in this case. Furthermore, at the Defendant's arraignment there
were at least three video cameras observed to be operating. The Court
consir.ers this to be disruptive of the proper and orderly administration of justice.
Accordingly, the Court hereby exercises its discretion under Rule 1.4 (e) to
require pool coverage. A copy of the Rule is attached hereto f9f reference. Strict adherence to all the provisions of Rule 1.4 is, of course, required at all times.
Given thai this Order does not accord the media sufficient time to arrange for pool coverage. the case will be continued on the Court's motion. The case is
rescheduled for Friday, November 14, 2008, at 1:30 P.M.
Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1.4 (d), if any person objects to the presence of video cameras in the courtroom, they may object. in which case the Court may
conduct an evidentiary hearing.
The parties are reminded that Rule 1.4 and the procedures it sets forth "apply to
all court procedures conducted outside the courtroom or court facility." District
Court Rule 1.4 (d).
Octobor 24. 2008 SO ORDERED
(This is an OCR, see the above PDF for the accurate version.)
Ugh. There is a general rule by which the judge can become dictator. It is now possible to ask him in what way the 3 cameramen disrupted justice at their arraignment of Ian. Not that it would have any affect, but it would be good to get on record and to publicize: "they were disruptive because I said so" or "justice wasn't served because I was concentrating on how my hair looked for the cameras."
Double ugh: "Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1.4 (d), if any person objects to the presence of video cameras in the courtroom, they may object. in which case the Court may conduct an evidentiary hearing." This is even broader! "Any person" objecting to the presence of video cameras could be the judge himself! I don't think he'd have the courage to pull that, but I can easily imagine a crony in the audience protesting the presence of cameras just so the judge can then ban then and conduct an evidentiary hearing.
The crony doesn't even have to be in the court. Any person includes the obsequious, absent or insane.
Burke finds cameras "disruptive" moves the "trial" to 11/14 1:30pm:
http://freekeene.com/2008/10/24/justice-burke-finds-cameras-disruptive/
We'll meet in the lobby of 3 Washington St., Keene. at around 1:10p.
ah ok... actually notice the order came out today at least one day AFTER they said no cameras 2x.
so they seem to be compromising with us. one camera, the typical arrangement in a post-Lindburg-baby trial, is good enough for me. Or at least good enough for me not to consider it disobedience-worthy. If others want to make an issue of it, I'm likely to provide coverage but not much in the way of disobedience.
Each member of the public should be able to bring their own recording device. The idea that possessing a recording device is "disruptive" is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind:
The pool coverage provision demands that only one recording device be allowed in the court and that all interested media parties must share the one recording. This of course means that whichever organization or individual is chosen to be the one with permission to record will scoop all of the rest of the parties on the report. They will have their news package out the door and to their viewers and listeners while the others are still waiting to receive a copy of the audio or video. Additionally, it means that the recording organization has to spend extra time and effort making their recording available for the others. This work on their part is of course, uncompensated. Finally, it is also a creative restriction on the videographers who are choosing to cover the trial. Each videographer is forced to abide by the creative decisions of the "chosen one", like it or not.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on October 24, 2008, 01:27 PM NHFT
Each member of the public should be able to bring their own recording device. The idea that possessing a recording device is "disruptive" is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind:
The pool coverage provision demands that only one recording device be allowed in the court and that all interested media parties must share the one recording. This of course means that whichever organization or individual is chosen to be the one with permission to record will scoop all of the rest of the parties on the report. They will have their news package out the door and to their viewers and listeners while the others are still waiting to receive a copy of the audio or video. Additionally, it means that the recording organization has to spend extra time and effort making their recording available for the others. This work on their part is of course, uncompensated. Finally, it is also a creative restriction on the videographers who are choosing to cover the trial. Each videographer is forced to abide by the creative decisions of the "chosen one", like it or not.
i've dealt with the pool a hundred times when i was in tv; it's not at all unworkable and in my experience no one ever scooped anyone. The guy running the camera actually is the one with the short end of the stick, but all the other media outlets get free labor for the day in exchange for their free labor.
It's not pure freedom but not a good strategic point to fight a battle over for more reasons than I'm beginning to list. however if you choose to fight it, you'll likely get coverage from me...
I see where you're coming from, Dave. What about the point of how the pool will be enforced OUTSIDE the court? Did you pick up on that threat?
Meaning, they could arrest people for recording the security screenings or the clerk's window.
.
or sometimes the things governments do are just so profoundly idiotic that someone really just doesn't have anything to say.
Quote from: Coconut on October 24, 2008, 04:25 PM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on October 24, 2008, 04:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: John on October 24, 2008, 04:06 PM NHFT.
?
Sometimes I think he puts that just to say "I've read this thread."
Thank you. Yes. But/And:
Actually the . is only so the thread will show up as particularly important to me.
I do that . when I want
to make sure I'm reminded to
try to follow/get back to that thread.
Quote from: John on October 24, 2008, 11:20 PM NHFTThank you. Yes. But/And:
Actually the . is only so the thread will show up as particularly important to me.
I do that . when I want to make sure I'm reminded to try to follow/get back to that thread.
I haven't used this feature, but isn't that basically what the "Notify" button is for?
Notify sends an email when a new post is added to the thread.
Quote from: AntonLee on October 24, 2008, 06:00 AM NHFT
QuoteBurke is not a good guy, I've seen him operate... he is a professional bully.
oh but I thought he was doing the right thing lately.
hahahahaha
it makes sense that everyone in the court could record the events ... it makes sense for you to walk out Ian if that is important to you