Supreme Court: No YouTube for you - for now.
Today’s opening argument in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial will not be streamed to other courthouses and will not be posted on YouTube at this time. From the AP:
The high court on Monday said it will not allow video of the trial to be posted on YouTube.com, even with a delay, until the justices have more time to consider the issue.
It’s reported that the stay was issued to last through 4 p.m. Eastern time Wednesday. From SCOTUSblog:
The ruling only allows “real-time streaming” of video of the trial to other rooms within the San Francisco courthouse, and not to other courthouses in the Ninth Circuit and not to YouTube for Internet webcast.
As the streaming video will be available within the San Francisco courthouse where the trial is taking place, it would appear that filming will continue, although it is not clear if the video will be archived for release later.
Justice Stephen Breyer dissented from the granting of the temporary stay.
[UPDATE: The Advocate reports that Judge Walker is allowing today's opening statements to be recorded:
"Boutrous asks court to record opening statements today pending SCOTUS decision. Cooper disagrees. Walker sides with Boutrous"]
[FURTHER UPDATE: The Supreme Court has posted the order, and I've made it available here. The Court -- not just Justice Kennedy -- held:
Upon consideration of the application for stay presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court, it is ordered that the order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:09-cv-02292, permitting real-time streaming is stayed except as it permits streaming to other rooms within the confines of the courthouse in which the trial is to be held. Any additional order permitting broadcast of the proceedings is also stayed pending further order of this Court. To permit further consideration in this Court, this order will remain in effect until Wednesday, January 13, 2010, at 4 p.m. eastern time.
As noted earlier, Justice Breyer dissented, noting that "the papers filed, in my view, do not show a likelihood of 'irreparable harm.'"]
Popularity: 10% [?]
Chris Geidner is the award-winning senior political editor at D.C.'s Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, The American Prospect, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications, as well as at his blog, Law Dork. In 2011, he received the Excellence in News Writing Award from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for his coverage of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal. Prior to moving to D.C. in 2009, he served as an attorney on the senior staff at the Ohio Attorney General's Office and had earlier worked for a leading Columbus law firm. An extended biography can be found
It’s probably premature to say too much about this decision now. Yet I can’t help believing it’s a bad sign. My post on it:
http://wordinedgewise.org/?p=677 (the preceding post also discusses the matter).
Here’s an excellent site live blogging the trial – exceptionally good coverage so far:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/author/teddysanfran
So only the opening statements were recorded. All the personal testimonies of the same-sex couples are lost, except through transcripts, to history? How sad. SFGate has a good piece out today saying that same-sex marriage advocates will face a major loss if the trial isn’t allowed to be broadcast. I couldn’t agree more.