Leave a Comment Sagesse
Prop 8: NYTimes editorializes in favor of releasing the tapes, media coalition files to intervene in case
October 3, 2011
By Adam Bink
I’m not sure why this was delayed until Oct. 2nd (perhaps for editorial space reasons) but this ran in yesterday’s NYTimes:
The American justice system rests on open and transparent proceedings. A recent ruling by Judge James Ware of Federal District Court in San Francisco wisely upheld this principle in ordering the release of a video recording of the civil trial on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.
The discriminatory measure was struck down last year by Vaughn Walker, the Federal District Court judge who presided at the trial; the case is pending appeal. Judge Ware addressed the separate question of whether the videotape should remain under court seal, as Proposition 8’s supporters urged. Pressing for the videotape’s release were the trial’s victorious plaintiffs, and a media coalition, including The New York Times Company.
Public access to trials and court records is “foremost among the aspects of the federal judicial system that foster public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the process,” Judge Ware wrote in his 14-page opinion. He rejected the assertion of the proposition’s backers that suppressing the videotapes was necessary to protect their two witnesses — both well-known individuals who testified at the trial and sometimes make TV appearances. He also rejected the claim that the Supreme Court’s order blocking broadcast of the trial as it was taking place bars releasing the videotape now.
Proposition 8’s proponents are appealing Judge Ware’s decision. They are plainly concerned that releasing the videotape will further expose the emptiness of their arguments for denying gay people the freedom to marry. But in America, potential embarrassment is insufficient ground for denying the public access to vital court records in such a momentous case.
In other news, as first noted by bjasonecf in the comments, the Non-Media Party Coalition has filed to intervene in this case, which is pending in the 9th Circuit:
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
17 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Alan_Eckert | October 3, 2011 at 3:10 pm
New York Times is part of the coalition, so I assume they waited to run the editorial until the same time the above brief was filed.
2.
Ann S. | October 3, 2011 at 3:22 pm
§
3.
Kathleen | October 3, 2011 at 3:23 pm
That's the motion to intervene. In case you missed it, bJasonecf also posted the brief in opposition to the stay.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/67347624
4.
Reformed | October 3, 2011 at 3:26 pm
"They are plainly concerned that releasing the videotape will further expose the emptiness of their arguments" says the New York Times. I love it.
5.
Kathleen | October 3, 2011 at 3:44 pm
UPDATE: Perry
Plaintiffs' Opposition to stay pending appeal of order to release trial recordings:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/67357335
Note the reference to Ken Starr's op-ed in the NYT.
6.
Ronnie | October 3, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Subscribing & sharing……
NCAA and Buick Highlight Hudson Taylor's Work Combating Homophobia in Sports: VIDEO http://www.towleroad.com/2011/10/hudsontaylor.htm…
"The NCAA and Buick are sharing stories of former NCAA student-athletes who are making a difference in the world today. Check out this great video that they produced about Hudson Taylor and his Athlete Ally organization."
<3…Ronnie:
[youtube uurW29BEcFM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uurW29BEcFM youtube]
7.
AnonyGrl | October 3, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Also in the times… a piece by Kenneth Starr about cameras in the courtroom.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/opinion/open-up…
8.
Kathleen | October 3, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Plaintiffs reference this Starr op-ed in their brief.
9.
John_B_in_DC | October 3, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Isn't it funny how they keep complaining that the trial was unfair, was a travesty of justice, etc. etc. etc. but they STILL don't want people to see the proceedings so they can judge for themselves (and possibly realize just what a sad, sorry defense of Prop. 8 its proponents were able to come up with).
10.
Ronnie | October 3, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Gay SF Mayoral Hopeful Bevan Dufty Features Daughter in New Ad: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/10/duftyad.html
<3…Ronnie:
[youtube oT9CE0vYEEI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT9CE0vYEEI youtube]
11.
Sagesse | October 3, 2011 at 6:20 pm
This is a cool read, even if you're not a stats geek.
Counting Same-Sex Couples: It's Not as Easy as You Think
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-j-gates/counti…
12.
Kathleen | October 3, 2011 at 6:37 pm
And here's the opposition from the City and County of San Francisco:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/67375651
13.
Adam Bink | October 3, 2011 at 7:11 pm
That's what I wrote.
14.
Bob | October 4, 2011 at 2:20 am
If you haven't noticed, Fox News is listed as one of the coalition to release the tapes.
15.
James Sweet | October 4, 2011 at 6:02 am
Interesting find! I suppose it makes sense: They are, after all, a news-themed entertainment company first and a conservative political force second. A close second, but second place nonetheless. Extending beyond the current case, it is in their best interest for video tapes of court cases to be open to the public — this will give them all sorts of opportunities for juicy quote-mining, after all!
I betcha they have pundits arguing against it though. heh…
16. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | February 1, 2012 at 12:15 pm
[...] done at a few speaking engagements. The plaintiffs, along with a coalition of media companies, filed their own motion to have the court unseal the recordings and make them public. At this point, [...]
17. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | February 2, 2012 at 10:11 am
[...] done at a few speaking engagements. The plaintiffs, along with a coalition of media companies, filed their own motion to have the court unseal the recordings and make them public. At this point, [...]
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.