@Perry
Considering all the media circuses that have have occurred in the history of American juris prudence your comment concerning the Heisenberg effect is right on.

It’s not that I am against cameras in the court room but past and ongoing media history bear out the fact that the cameras do have an effect on the proceedings. That’s where the Heisenberg effect becomes apropo to the proceeding at hand. In today’s cyberspace world and instant access that’s where the uncertainty principle rears its Hydra-like heads affecting the outcomes.

The visual media has a responsibility to maintain a level of decorum and dignity to its trial coverages. Unfortunately, that has not been the case in many instances. In fact, if cameras in the courtrooms were a constant entity without editorial commentaries, legal play-by-play analysis, and ‘sporting’ replays the general viewing audience might find the proceedings of justice boring. A legal proceeding is not a ‘media’ event nor a reality-show genre program.

Cameras in the courtroom are great but only if they are used for informative reporting purposes. The commercial voyeurism and inflammatory fragmentation of the judicial process that the media probably is liable to do is scary. That’s the uncertainty of the this issue.

Don’t you agree?

Yes it is. You can walk in, sit down and watch. But if you disrupt a case, you will be thrown out, or perhaps thrown in jail.

The media is there to create entertainment. They will goad people into behavior that will be disruptive.

In case you haven’t noticed, the media is also heavily biased. They will chose what you see and give slanted coverage that is the opposite of the truth.