By restricting the right of public access to courtroom attendance, or by default, to official transcripts or news and other second-hand reports, the ruling below perpetuates physical, wealth, and other arbitrary barriers against public access that excludes all but a select few from gaining unmediated and unabridged information about the process as well as substance of American judicial proceedings. Internet broadcasting now makes it possible to lower, if not entirely eliminate, those barriers. The essence of the public access right asserted here is that the under the Constitution, the federal courts possess and must exercise discretion to take advantage of the “new technology” as far as necessities of judicial economy, order, and fairness permit.Tenenbaum has also asked the district court "for a stay of all further public proceedings in this case until the Supreme Court has opportunity to act on his petition." Those proceedings include an important motion hearing this Friday, as well as the trial currently set for July 20.
While I support the webcast as a matter of policy, I consider the likelihood of the Supreme Court granting cert. here (or reversing the First Circuit, which held that the webcast is not permitted under District of Massachusetts local rules) to be exceedingly low. Tenenbaum's cert. petition identifies no circuit split, and it relies chiefly on Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia,
Disclosure: I signed on to an amicus brief in the First Circuit in support of the webcast (though not on constitutional grounds).
(h/t Recording Industry vs. The People)