Prop 8 coverage banned.

[pasithea]

In an emergency move, supreme court has blocked video coverage of the prop-8 case after pleas from the right wing that they might face discrimination when they present and empty case based on fear and ignorance....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-prop-8-12-2010jan12,0,7701011.story

Oh yes. Gay on straight violence is SUCH a problem.

Those men must live in fear of a vicious gang of lesbians showing up in front of their home and singing protest songs out of key while brutally abusing G-chords on acoustic guitars.

Wow. Compared to bombing gay bars, beating young boys to death and setting them on fire, and hundreds of violent assaults per year, it's easy to see why they're so scared.

Comments

[tracerj.livejournal.com]

Do we get to pull the "What, do you have something to hide?" line on them? I love brutal turnabouts.

After all, if I'm going to hamstring my own plans for global domination by practicing what I preach, they should have to do the same.

Proof in the pudding

[krdbuni.livejournal.com]

Maggie Howarth's all but admitted that if they have to explain themselves in the open in court for people to see, they lose. They know their case is based on prejudice and fearmongering. They know that their arguments ultimately fall to "religious discrimination" which violates the first amendment. They know their window of opportunity to set the terms of the debate is shrinking. Their claims of "fearing prejudice" is one more smokescreen move designed to try to keep them from having to admit in public that the only reason they want to ban gay marriage is that their god tells them it's sinful, which is really only one psychological step shy of saying "I think it's gross so you shouldn't do it because lalalalalalalalalala I can't hear you please don't stick your thingie in my butt!"

I hate saying this because it smacks of appeal to invalid authority, but I know I've seen psych studies that show that getting people to change brand identification is much harder than getting people to identify with a brand in the first place. I think they're trying to sell "sanctity of marriage" as a brand identity, because they know they lose on anything less. We win if we can be patient long enough for the current generation of bigots to die, because the next generation doesn't understand what the fuss is. That's small comfort to those of us who want it now, but we can take comfort in the idea that we've already won in the long run.

Now all I need it the patience not to assassinate the Pope for being a douche, and we're set.

[emiofbrie.livejournal.com]

If this case has a public audience, all it takes is one person with a streaming-capable audio device. Just sayin' ;)

[centauress.livejournal.com]

That's seriously illegal.

[emiofbrie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but many beneficial positive non-violent acts in civil rights movements are/have been illegal.

[lisanys.livejournal.com]

Is it? I'm curious if you have a law citation handy cos I'm curious what they call the offense and what the penalty is.

At a guess

[coffeedaiv.livejournal.com]

If someone were to do something in a courtroom that judge explicitly forbade, i suspect that qualifies as Contempt of Court. my understanding (which is drawn from many years of watching Night Court) is that Contempt of court is a very broadly written statute.
For What it is worth.

[pseudomanitou.livejournal.com]

Isn't that why right-wing-nuts commit violence against gays?- because they are scared?

Let's face it -- these people aren't bullies first, they are cowards. They seek power so they can be bullies.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Just bugs me. Their reason for wanting no cameras seems even more baseless than their reason for prop 8 in the first place.

In this type of hearing, there is no jury to be biased and everything will be a matter of public record and the case is of course about public interests so you'd think it something of a no brainer that the public actually be allowed to see what's going on. There simply isn't enough space in the audience seating of the courtroom to allow all the interested people to come and watch.

And as for their supposed fear of retribution... I could have SWORE there was something in the 6th amendment about the right to know your accuser, and let's face it. The language of 'Protect Marriage' implies quite strongly that gays are some kind of threat. I know I'm stretching the definition a bit here but constitutional law was intentionally vague and I think there's a good case for covering this sort of discrimination.

If there were a court case pending to restore slavery or repeal suffrage, doesn't it seem like the public should be entitled to see who is fucking with their life and why?

If it were a case being decided by a jury I might feel differently. I'm even a bit iffy on whether or not class action cases should be immediately publicly accessible, but a matter of state constitution which does NOT a real defendant (IE a person our corporation) this one seems pretty clear-cut.

[paka.livejournal.com]

When a minority is not visible - their day in court is not televised, or they are shunted into a ghetto or barrio for "those people," or into a camp somewhere - it is easier to discriminate against them.

I wish I could beat the fuck out of these self-righteous Christian pricks.

[doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com]

I'm surprised the thing you haven't mentioned is that this is a bad sign for what happens when the Supreme Court inevitably gets the case...

[centauress.livejournal.com]

And... That decision was reversed right before court started today, but another judge, so court proceedings were recorded and streamed.

I think it's important for it to be recorded and streamed so the right-wingers can't whine after the court decides against them.