Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Bad news from Mashable, BuzzFeed, and Vice shows times are rough for ad-supported digital media
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
March 14, 2012, 2:13 p.m.

Top Mass. court: OpenCourt can keep its cameras rolling

With the ruling, the Knight News Challenge winner and judicial transparency project will be allowed to post video of public court proceedings online.

Just in time for Sunshine Week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled in favor of courtroom transparency project OpenCourt and its ability to record and stream online video of public court proceedings.

The decision means that OpenCourt can continue to do what it set out to do since its inception, despite the state’s attempts to stop it. Judges cited OpenCourt’s First Amendment rights to publish audio and video of court proceedings “by ‘streaming live’ over the Internet, publicly archiving on the Web site or otherwise.”

“This is obviously a good day for OpenCourt,” the project’s executive director, John Davidow, told me. (Full disclosure: Davidow was my news director when I worked at WBUR, the public radio station where OpenCourt is based.) “We felt that it was really an important right for us to fight for in the courts, because as the technology changes going forward, it doesn’t mean that the editorial processes or the rights of the First Amendment change.”

OpenCourt was launched with a Knight News Challenge grant in 2010, originally under the name Order in the Court 2.0. The project first turned on its cameras in a Boston-area courtroom in May 2011, but by July, the local district attorney’s office had filed a pair of motions aimed at shutting off the OpenCourt livestream and preventing it from publishing courtroom video to online archives.

According to OpenCourt’s timeline of the case, a judge denied the motion to take down the livestream — but she didn’t rule right away on the motion related to archival video. The state then renewed its motions against OpenCourt after a district attorney blurted out the name of an alleged victim, a minor, in a kidnapping case. At that time, the judge ruled to prevent OpenCourt from publishing the video of the blurt.

In response, WBUR’s lawyers sent a letter to the judge saying that his order violated OpenCourt’s First Amendment rights. OpenCourt said it would have redacted the name of the minor, following standard practice among news organizations.

Davidow says that the ruling means that decisions about what to cover will remain in the hands of the public, not the government. But he also says there’s more work to be done to modernize courts coverage, including propagating best practices and better educating the public.

“When there are less and less reporters out there to be the bridge to what’s going on in the nation’s courts, there needs to be a way for the public to be informed about how justice is administered in this country,” Davidow said.

Here’s the court’s ruling:

POSTED     March 14, 2012, 2:13 p.m.
SHARE THIS STORY
   
Show comments  
Show tags
 
Join the 45,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Bad news from Mashable, BuzzFeed, and Vice shows times are rough for ad-supported digital media
The rapid growth of Google and Facebook continues to take its toll on digital media companies.
Asking members to support its journalism (no prizes, no swag), The Guardian raises more reader revenue than ad dollars
The Guardian revamped its ask and its membership offerings — moving from 12,000 members in the beginning of 2016 to 300,000 today.
Beating the 404 death knell: Singapore news startups struggle to cover costs and find their footing
Political news reporting doesn’t seem to be holding up well as a business in the city-state. And it’s even harder when you’re seen as “alternative” media.