For the past eight days, hundreds of thousands of viewers have tuned in to livestreams of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. The Illinois resident, who was 17 years old when he was arrested, is accused of murdering two rioters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020 during the riots that swept the country in the months after George Floyd’s death.
Before the heavily publicized trial began, the Left condemned the 18 year old to the death penalty while the Right labeled him a hero. But now that Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder allowed the trial to be livestreamed, Americans have the chance to hear both sides and judge for themselves.
Peering into the courtroom in real time allows Americans to avoid relying on journalists’ potentially slanted coverage.
Congress and all 50 states should require federal and state courts to livestream court proceedings, with some exceptions for certain cases like those involving minors or sexual assault.
Most states allow live coverage to some extent, though some very minimally. Federal court camera rules vary by district and many ban live coverage. Other districts leave it up to the judge, who normally denies cameras in the courtroom.
With record-high distrust in the media — only 36% of those surveyed in a recent Gallup poll said they have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the media — it is long past time to open the doors of our courts to ensure trust in the fundamental institutions of our nation.
For a case as polarizing as Rittenhouse’s, it is only right that the trial is broadcast gavel to gavel. Otherwise, we have to rely on mainstream media organizations who are biased against Rittenhouse and labeled him a “white supremacist” and “murderer” months before the trial.
Americans should be allowed to make their own judgments, not rely on Fox News or the Washington Post.
For the past two months, disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes has been on trial in California for charges of conspiracy and defrauding investors and patients about her start-up blood-testing company.
Cameras are not allowed in the San Jose courtroom. As a CNET article on Holmes’ trial put it: “television cameras aren’t allowed in the courtroom, so the best way to follow the case will be via reporters in the room taking notes the old-fashioned way.”
No thanks. I prefer to come to my own conclusions.
Opponents to live coverage say it impedes a defendant’s chance at a fair trial.
But by watching trials, the people can verify that defendants are receiving fair trials. Behind closed doors, this right is protected by a few, but when broadcast, the trial is monitored by viewers, who can ensure constitutionality.
Plus, the Constitution protects the right “to a speedy and public trial.” Bringing proceedings to screens across the country ensures this right is secured.
Our nation stands to benefit from increased transparency about its justice system. The Annenberg Public Policy Center conducted a survey that found only 39% of respondents could correctly name the three branches of government.
Of course, there are circumstances where livestreaming is not appropriate. But this should be the exception, not the rule.
Cameras in courtrooms have been a public debate since 1935 when the trial of Bruno Hauptmann — the man eventually convicted of abducting and murdering aviator Charles Lindbergh’s baby son — was heavily disrupted by photographers standing on tables and blinding attendees with their flashing lights.
After Hauptmann’s disruptive trial, the American Bar Association forbade photography and television coverage of trials.
Since then, laws and litigation have fought for more public access. In March 2021, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar reintroduced a bill to allow cameras in federal courtrooms, called the “Sunshine in the Courtroom Act,” which would allow television cameras in all federal courtrooms.
“Cameras in our courts fortify the public trust in our nation’s administration of justice,” Grassley said in May.
The Iowa senator is right, and the Rittenhouse trial reinforces his point. Americans deserve to trust that proceedings are handled properly and should not rely on biased corporate journalism to summarize the process.
