Just because something is technically possible does not mean it should be done.
We live in a world where too many senseless things are permitted just because technological development enables them. We have, for example, recently entered "the drone age", and we see far more upcoming negative consequences than positive. Keep the air free of these potential monstrosities.
Tech advancement should serve and benefit mankind and its institutions.
Too often this is not the case.
At the New York Times, Jonathan Sherman has an op-ed titled End the Supreme Court’s Ban on Cameras.
Although we were once of the opinion that cameras in court might be something positive, the increasingly negative development of sensationalistic media and the public's preference for yellow tabloid junk as opposed to quality news indicates to this writer that courts should stay as far away from the "entertainment" side of court media as possible, and that means "no cameras".
The job of courts is do justice under law.
Nothing more. Nothing less. But nothing more.
For cameras we have Hollywood. The courts have a different function.
Respect for the law will unavoidably suffer in the long term if the judiciary is reduced to being more or less crews of leading men and ladies, stunt men, darlings of the public, or their opposite. "Speaking" the nation's law should not turn into a popularity contest, which it surely would if every sentence could be filmed and published in the media.
We already have enough organizations manned by incompetents whose main claim to fame is that they know how to please, to look good, to wear the right clothing, to phrase the right texts, to be "politically correct", etc., but often people who do a great deal of damage by not being truly qualified for the job that they are ostensibly doing.
Frankly, as a matter of law, we need less judicial pandering to the masses and more normative, exemplary behavior for the benefit of the weak hordes who need it.
"No cameras," thank you.
Let them read the oral argument transcripts!
Hah! Who does?
We live in a world where too many senseless things are permitted just because technological development enables them. We have, for example, recently entered "the drone age", and we see far more upcoming negative consequences than positive. Keep the air free of these potential monstrosities.
Tech advancement should serve and benefit mankind and its institutions.
Too often this is not the case.
At the New York Times, Jonathan Sherman has an op-ed titled End the Supreme Court’s Ban on Cameras.
Although we were once of the opinion that cameras in court might be something positive, the increasingly negative development of sensationalistic media and the public's preference for yellow tabloid junk as opposed to quality news indicates to this writer that courts should stay as far away from the "entertainment" side of court media as possible, and that means "no cameras".
The job of courts is do justice under law.
Nothing more. Nothing less. But nothing more.
For cameras we have Hollywood. The courts have a different function.
Respect for the law will unavoidably suffer in the long term if the judiciary is reduced to being more or less crews of leading men and ladies, stunt men, darlings of the public, or their opposite. "Speaking" the nation's law should not turn into a popularity contest, which it surely would if every sentence could be filmed and published in the media.
We already have enough organizations manned by incompetents whose main claim to fame is that they know how to please, to look good, to wear the right clothing, to phrase the right texts, to be "politically correct", etc., but often people who do a great deal of damage by not being truly qualified for the job that they are ostensibly doing.
Frankly, as a matter of law, we need less judicial pandering to the masses and more normative, exemplary behavior for the benefit of the weak hordes who need it.
"No cameras," thank you.
Let them read the oral argument transcripts!
Hah! Who does?
