Yes but concerned citizens (which is all of us here) are able to follow the trial by reviewing what the reporters report. There are several so we should get a pretty compete picture.
This judge doesn’t want the trial to be entertainment. That’s his prerogative. Annoying but not unconstitutional.
I can’t speak for Alethea but I believe in this context the term nosy nelly stands for people who feel entitled to live streamed trials, won’t accept less and believe that failure to deliver every minute of video recorded trial right into their living rooms means the trial is being held in secret and is a violation of constitutional protections.
BBM:
Here's the problem with that.
There's no way we're going to get a verbatim account of what the witnesses are saying.
We'll get a lot of info, but we're not nearly going to get all, and what we will get will be filtered through the media.
The public is going to miss a whole lot of what's being conveyed verbally in the courtroom, and nearly all of what's being conveyed non-verbally in the courtroom.
John Q. Public here is completely dependent upon MSM reporters to get their frantic tweets and courtroom observations entirely accurate.
Reporters are fallible. Consequently, there will be some misreporting of facts, and misstatements.
We've seen what happens when there's even the slightest misstatement in the media.
Chaos ensues.
Without any courtroom audio or video available to fact-check the information we'll be getting via secondhand reports, this could all quickly degenerate into a massive version of the Chinese Telephone Game.
Banning sketch artists from the courtroom is a far, far cry from banning video streaming.
Seriously, who considers colored pencils and sketch pads a threat to the Constitution?
It's like somebody handed Chairman Mao a gavel and a black robe.
JMO.
