[Leica] Re: LEGAL STUFF

[Dave Yoder <leica@home.com>]

Ted--

The OJ coverage was a disgrace to journalism and it revealed the true nature
of television "news." However, what you don't see from wherever you are
(Canada?) is all the unsensational work coming out of the court rooms. Here in
California we have pretty free access to the courtrooms these days (though we
occasionally run into an obstinant judge) and our presence does not influence
the participants in any noticeable way.

Sure, society would probably not perish if no photographers were allowed in
the courts. But in the absence of a powerful reason for it to be so, the
courts would be deciding what the media's standards are to be. I'd rather see
the media practice a measure of poor taste and sensationalism than to have
judges decide what the public should be hearing and seeing.

For example: recently a judge in Los Angeles had the bailiff activate a stun
belt on a defendant who wouldn't stop talking on her orders. No cameras were
present, but I'm sure what they would have recorded had they been there would
have been of great value to the public in deciding if it was inapropriate
punishment (which is what the public concensus is at the moment). If sending
thousands of volts through a defendent who disobayed her oders were to become
the judge's practice, and the media had the opportunity to record it, I'm sure
the judge would rule it outside the proper conduct of the media if it was OK
for the judges to decide what is appropriate for the which branch of the media
to witness. It's my opinion that the judges should not be allowed to permit
the attendendance of some types of accredited media (reporters) and not others
(photographers) as long as the integrity of the courtroom is maintained.



Dave Yoder



Ted Grant wrote:

> <<<<<At 06:43 PM 8/31/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >RULE 2.170 Standards of Conduct and Technology Governing Media and Still
> >Photography Coverage of Judicial Proceedings.>>>>>>>
>
> Eric Welch responded:
> >That must have been old. I heard Florida dropped the M Leica quiet rule.
> >Maybe they just don't enforce it. It's tough to shoot in court with the
> >longest lens being 135mm. Or maybe we get around the rule by comparing our
> >SLRs to the Visoflex? :-)>>>>>>>>>
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> Nice to see you responding once again.
>
> Regarding the above topic..."in court photography" I think we in Canada
> have the right attitude about cameras in the court room. "they're not
> allowed, TV or otherwise."
>
> I believe that should be the way, certainly if you watched all the "play
> acting, posturing" that took place during the OJ case and others on
> American TV. Besides who cares what the people look like in a court room
> just sitting there doing whatever it is they're doing, picking their nose
> or their ass, It's really non-relevent subject material, OJ or otherwise.
>
> The gutter press of course love this stuff, sells more papers, makes more
> profits and that's the bottom line subject of court room image making, not
> whether great photographs are taken.
>
> I know a bunch of you US lads are going to come back with freedom of the
> press, the amendments etc. but that just doesn't wash! After all who really
> cares, rarely has there been smashing great images taken.
>
> Leica or no Leica!
>
> ted
>
> Ted Grant
> This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler.
> http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant