- Best company ever? Veteran Beer Co. exists to employ vets, provide quality beer
- Iran official: Sanctions ‘utterly failed’ to stop nuclear program
- ‘Black Santa’ display at IU sparks student outrage
- Joint Chiefs chair Dempsey: Pentagon, VA too slow in merging medical systems
- Sen. Ben Cardin hits Ukraine for crackdown on Kiev protests
- Drone technology turns South, targets feral pigs to kill
- Puerto Rico caravan honoring Paul Walker ends in 6 drunken-driving arrests, 72 speeding tickets
- Better pack a lightsaber: House told space explorers could find alien life in 10 years
- Selfies gone too far? N.Y. woman snaps photo in front of suicidal man on bridge
- High times on D.C. radio: Toronto’s crack-addled Mayor Ford gets sports spot
Gay-marriage foes slam plans to televise Prop 8 trial
Question of the Day
Supporters of traditional marriage are outraged over a California judge’s efforts to bring television cameras into court next week to cover a trial challenging Proposition 8, California’s initiative against gay marriage.
Judge Vaughn R. Walker, chief judge of the Northern District of California, proposed a last-minute revision of the court’s rules that would allow television coverage of the trial. Those who want to comment have until Friday, and the trial begins Monday.
Attorneys for Proposition 8 backers said television coverage would expose their witnesses to further harassment and intimidation. Backers of Proposition 8 were targeted for harassment in the months after the initiative’s passage in November 2008. Some donors received threatening e-mails, letters and phone calls, while churches and businesses were singled out for boycotts and protests.
Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which campaigned for Proposition 8 but isn’t a party to the case, said he is worried about the safety of witnesses, who could include contributors, campaign staff and volunteers.
“The question is really whether Judge Walker can put people on the stand where they can be threatened,” said Mr. Brown. “It’s a question of people’s safety.”
A hearing on the matter is scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday in San Francisco, said David Madden, a spokesman for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
He said the rules and parameters for any televised coverage were under discussion, including decisions on how many cameras to allow, where to place the cameras, and whose cameras would be permitted in the courtroom.
“We’re trying to work this all out,” said Mr. Madden. “We want to make sure people know we’re being very cautious about this.”
The court ordinarily bans television, radio and photography, but the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit announced Dec. 17 that it approved on an experimental basis “the limited use of cameras in federal courts within the system.”
“We hope that being able to see and hear what transpires in the courtroom will lead to a better public understanding of our judicial processes and enhanced confidence in the rule of law,” said 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. “The experiment is designed to help us find the right balance between the public’s right to access to the courts and the parties’ right to a fair and dignified proceeding.”
Since 1991, the 9th Circuit has allowed some television and radio broadcasting of oral arguments with the approval of the judges hearing the case, according to a statement issued by the court.
Those backing cameras in the courtroom include a consortium of media outlets as well as gay rights groups. The Courage Campaign on Tuesday sent an alert asking its members to sign a petition in favor of television coverage.
“The case presents issues that are very important to the public, and will affect millions of people,” said Rick Jacobs, chairman of the Courage Campaign, a group that advocates gay marriage. “However, if the case is not televised, only a tiny fraction will ever be able to watch the trial in person.
“By televising the trial, the public will be able to see for themselves the arguments and evidence presented by both sides, and will therefore have more confidence in the outcome of the trial,” he said.
Meanwhile, opponents of same-sex marriage point out that the experimental use of cameras was intended initially for low-profile cases, while the Proposition 8 trial has generated huge media interest.
About the Author
Valerie Richardson covers politics and the West from Denver. She can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Gay couple's complaint against Colo. baker gets hearing
- Fracking supporters fire back at 'woefully misinformed' celebrities
- Colorado campus considers Indian names for dorms
- Wolves no longer endangered but friends fight their delisting
- Kmart, Walmart, Best Buy, other stores ready for Thanksgiving business
Latest Blog Entries
By Tom Harris and Madhav Khandekar
Bad science puts rich nations on the hook for trillions in climate liabilities
- Hola: Boehner prepares to push amnesty bill through House
- Kill team: Obama war chiefs widen drone death zones
- U.S. drops 2,000 mice on Guam by parachute to kill snakes
- Doctors say profound new HIV treatment may prove the cure
- Inside China: Nuclear submarines capable of widespread attack on U.S.
- EDITORIAL: Motor City meltdown
- CARSON: Getting to the top by starting at the bottom
- Last call: State Dept. bought $180,000 in liquor before shutdown
- MILLER: Obamas EPA closing smelter will not affect ammunition supply
- Obama: Growing income inequality 'defining challenge' of this generation
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
The Career Doctor Cassi Fields prescribes valuable advice for anyone looking to find a career, nail an interview or earn a promotion.
Headlines from Associated Press and around the Internet
Columns from Voices around the World talking about the events, people, politics and social issues that concern us wherever, and whoever, we are.
This column will cover anything that has anything remotely to do with the game of baseball, from the game itself to mid-summer trades to offseason moves.