. . .As Plaintiffs correctly point out, the trial will be held in open court, so witness names and testimony may be reported upon publicly, regardless of remote access. Id.
The Court concludes that audio-only streaming strikes the right balance between accommodating Defendants’ concerns and ensuring public access to the upcoming bench trial, which will involve issues of significant public concern and interest. Accordingly, the Court orders that the August 11–13 bench trial will be accessible to members of the public via audio-only Zoom pursuant to Civil Local Rule 77-3.
IT IS SO ORDERED. . . .
End, update.
So in a profoundly-untimely motion on Friday, the Noemites are seeking in SF USDC. . . to prevent remote public access to next week's trial -- on the National Guard's / Marines' / ICE's invasion of the streets of LA. The Noemites argue that Zoom access will "endanger" the acting commander of the National Guard -- who is their sole witness.
Being on TV is part of the job. And, of course, the Noemites cannot seal the courtroom, as these are the people's courts. We are entitled as a matter of First Amendment law, to observe and report on these proceedings. To say they are matters of substantial public concern. . . is to vastly understate the gravity of this hearing next week.
And it is near impossible to see how, given that Noem's purported "agitators" may attend live, in court. . . HOW a Zoom feed, muted as to speaking ability, is in ANY manner dangerous. Damn. Here's that silly motion -- and a bit of it. It will fail.
. . .Yesterday, the parties exchanged final witness lists.
The parties expect the Court will hear testimony from the three individuals who have given deposition testimony, which includes two Department of Defense officials and one official from the Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Enforcement and Removal Operations. It is undisputed that agitators have used social media and the Internet to coordinate attacks [Ed. Note: no, they asserted their peaceful FIRST AMENDMENT rights, remotely -- to oppose this lawlessness -- nothing more!] against DHS ICE ERO personnel. . . .
[The State of California] did not affirmatively seek a broadcast and so [does] not take a position on Defendants' motion and defers to the Court's discretion. We note that this is an exceptionally high-profile case of great interest to the public, which ordinarily weighs in favor of allowing public remote access, and that [Noemites] Defendants motion is untimely as the Court provided notice more than two weeks ago of the planned broadcast and the witnesses being called at trial are not unexpected.
Plaintiffs are not in a position to evaluate the assertion of risks faced by the witnesses because those threats are not detailed in the motion. But Plaintiffs note that because the courtroom will be open and the witnesses names and words will be reported by media, any risk could come only from their images being broadcast publicly, and the Court could address any such risk by not showing the witnesses on camera, so that they would be heard but not seen on the broadcast. . . .
And if the head of the National Guard is too embarrassed to own up to following what he knew were lawless orders Noem, Rubio, Miller and Trump issued. . . well, that's the whole point, right? "Accountability. That's for thee, not me!" -- seems to be the Noemite mantra.
Onward, just the same -- to next week! [And now, as synchronicity would have it, we are planning our whole family end of August Mexico excursion by Zoom, myself with my grown kids, spread across the globe. . . later this morning. Then an extended family BBQ later today -- hot, hazy and later Summer-ey here. Whew!]
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment