JFB Reaction to First Circuit Ruling
We are disappointed by the First Circuit’s decision and maintain that Joel is being denied a constitutional right to a public trial in the age of the internet. We believe that Judge Gertner was within her authority to make decisions regarding her own courtroom. We intend to explore every legal option available to Joel.
We encourage the public to weigh in and express its support of internet in the courtroom with comments on our blog post at www.joelfightsback.com.
1. I believe public broadcasting of court proceedings is very important in general, and in these cases in particular.
2. I hope you will make a motion for rehearing en banc.
I also agree that the internet should be allowed access to the courtroom in these and any other court cases in the future. While this also could be abused, I feel that, at least at the moment, it is the only viable recourse to the substantial rights abuses that citizens have already been subjected to in the legal proceedings that copyrights holders in the United States have pushed for many years.
I second Mr. Beckerman’s sentiments.
If there’s any way in the world to overturn this, it’s worth a shot.
Good luck!
The RIAA’s attempts to prevent the public from finding out what takes place in these trials is disturbing. Our justice system should strive for transparency — especially when the defendant is the one requesting that his/her trial be aired publicly (whether on television or the Internet).
The USA has no need for secret trials on matters of copyright.
It’s very disappointing that in this ‘era of transparency’ the Obama administration ushered in, we still have judges and other parts of our government trying as hard as they can to obscure facts and distort the justice system. Very disappointing that even transparency, regardless of the facts behind the case, cannot be counted on these days.
Abuse is really no good excuse not to do this - it would be the same as denying a freedom of information act request on the basis that the response -may- be used in part or out of context. I would question the First Court’s decision and their motives.
I’d say that is quite discriminatory to those of us interested in the case that cannot afford to fly out and see each part of the case. What possible reason could the court have to deny us the opportunity to witness these proceedings? I could understand if the defendant wanted to keep the proceedings quiet, but in this case it is a serial litigator wanting to keep its actions as hidden as possible.
Any chance J. Gertner will make an effort to have the District Court revise the local rule? Any idea if any other judges would be on board for that?
“We are disappointed by the First Circuit’s decision and maintain that Joel is being denied a constitutional right to a public trial in the age of the internet”
Just want to make sure I understand: You believe the Constitution requrires EVERY proceeding in EVERY case in EVERY court in America to be broadcast on the internet?
“I hope you will make a motion for rehearing en banc.”
Futile. There are only six judges on the First Circuit and three of them sat on this case. So Joel would need to convince all three others (there’s no way any of Lynch, Boudin, Howard would be convinced) PLUS get one of the three members of the panel to change his mind. Not going to happen.
“The USA has no need for secret trials on matters of copyright.”
Dude, this is not the Star Chamber. Judge Gertner’s courtroom will be open. All you need to do is show up.
so can’t the jfb team simply pay a collegue of the original court reporter (or some other person that can type steno since the courtreporters might do this illegal cartel forming too when their “records monopoly” is threatened) to wittness the proceedings in person, write it down and have it instantly after judge gertner hits the closing gavel public over the internet?
Why wait weeks or month for a transcript if the information can be disseminated at least “near real time” though?
If you students have cell phones with reasonable data plans (of course you shut those phones down during the proceedings!) you could beam your thoughts in picture and voice only minutes after the proceedings out to the internet!
See for example the cell phone/laptop broadcasts from the TPB trial in sweden via the “bambuser” live web transmitting service.
http://bambuser.com/channel/Spectrial
Having a legal proceeding open to the public should mean just that; if we have the capability to stream a proceeding, then we should do so. Good luck!
[...] public trial in the age of the Internet,” says a statement on Mr. Tenenbaum’s Web site, Joel Fights Back. “We intend to explore every legal option available to Joel,” it says. “We [...]
The U. S. should not be having 20th century trials in the 21st century. The rules closing down trials to the media are based on communication models from the 1920s, when cameras and microphones were large and obtrusive. With modern technology, this is no longer the case. There may be an occasional justification to close off trials to protect individuals, but there is no reason for courts to protect recording cartels.
With potentially millions of dollars , and a kid’s future on the line, It would only be right to bring some light on the Vampires. So much for a transparent adminsitration, but then again, I guess we can see right through it.
[...] nota publicada no site Joel Fights Back, a equipa de Harvard manifestou o seu desagrado para com a decisão e reafirmou que considera que a [...]
“It’s very disappointing that in this ‘era of transparency’ the Obama administration ushered in, we still have judges and other parts of our government trying as hard as they can to obscure facts and distort the justice system.”
Bryan, you do realize that Obama has appointed 6 former RIAA attorneys to his administration, don’t you?