Camera panning civil dis? (Keene)

[Dave Ridley]

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?

[Dave Ridley]

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?

[Kat Kanning]

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?

[Mike Barskey]

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.

[Russell Kanning]

what if there are 100 people in the room?

[Mike Barskey]

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.

[John Edward Mercier]

I would suggest it only be important to get the consensus of those there not of their free will.

[Coconut]

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.

[FTL_Ian]

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.

[dalebert]

Can you imagine the videos and news articles about someone being put in jail for panning a camera in a court room?

[Giggan]

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.

[FTL_Ian]

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.

[jzacker]

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.

[Coconut]

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.

[jzacker]

Well what did the court say when you asked them about the no-panning rule?