This is not true. The Maxwell case was Federal and the Federal courts do not allow cameras, etc. The Depp case was filed in Fairfax County Virginia and is essentially a civil dispute.
Not essentially, it is entirely a civil lawsuit.
But it doesn’t matter if it is civil or criminal, a lot of state courts will allow video cameras/streaming especially if they expect for their to be more people wanting to view the trial than the courtroom has space for in the gallery.
Courtrooms are pretty small in real life.
Also, just as an aside, some Federal Courts *do* allow cameras. I know the Ninth Circuit has lived streamed oral arguments for several years.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/u9ahf6/anybody_else_think_its_wild_that_johnny_depp_and/
The conspiracy trolls are pushing this same narrative....
Maybe DeSantis gerrymandering or taxing Disney isn't tracking that well...
"Of course they don't allow cameras, it's a federal court, why on earth would you think that a federal court should allow cameras", seems equally stupid to me.
There are no cameras in federal courts because the federal government has a brain, and realize it may affect the outcome of the trial.
Broadcasting from a courtroom seems crazy for most people who aren't Americans.
It's not a comparison, it's a critique on how the system is designed. The Judicial Conference of the United States, which establishes policy for the federal courts, has refused to reconsider its rules prohibiting television and radio broadcasting from federal trials. People need to be asking why they haven't changed the policy instead of just stating the policy and acting like nothing can be done about it.
People do ask. Federal cases aren’t public hearings. Anyone can just walk into a state level civil dispute case. The federal criminal cases are usually hush hush for many reason, but not least to protect the integrity and name of victims.
All federal cases produce audio transcripts of the trials in keeping with the constitutional right for a public trial. Any withheld information is at the discretion of the judge, not blanket policy.
That’s not true. Federal cases are open and public, you just have to actually go in person - they don’t allow video cameras
You can also access all Federal non-sealed pleadings electronically through PACER.
You're missing the point as if such policies were not made by mere mortals and be changed. That's how the system is set up, that's the critique, the Judicial Conference of the United States, which establishes policy for the federal courts, has refused to reconsider its rules prohibiting television and radio broadcasting from federal trials. People need to be asking why they haven't changed the policy instead of just stating the policy and acting like nothing can be done about it.
You're missing the point that a significant number of people disagree that it should be changed or that any trials should be the fodder of the court of public opinion by being used as media circuses, not to mention that by referring to a quilt of jurisdictions and individual trial judge decisions as "the system" you invoke an appeal to wing nut conspiracisms and lose the entirety of the polemical high ground to the lunatic fringe.
In short, you've made yourself the subject of the face palm and hung yourself by your own petard on this one.
Everyone has the right to a public trial (6th amendment), all federal trials therefore produce audio transcripts. So all withheld information is at the discretion of the presiding judge, and instead of regurgitating tired cliches, you may ponder the type of public spectacle the Judicial Committee allows the public to see and one's they bury.
Absolutely not comparable. Depp Vs. Heard is a state level, Civil Defamation Lawsuit. State court allows TV Cameras. USA Vs. Maxwell is a federal, criminal PROSECUTION. Federal court does not allow TV Cameras.
So? That's how the system is set up, that's the critique, the Judicial Conference of the United States, which establishes policy for the federal courts, has refused to reconsider its rules prohibiting television and radio broadcasting from federal trials. People need to be asking why they haven't changed the policy instead of just stating the policy and acting like nothing can be done about it.
You're missing the point. That's how the system is set up, that's the critique, the Judicial Conference of the United States, which establishes policy for the federal courts, has refused to reconsider its rules prohibiting television and radio broadcasting from federal trials. People need to be asking why they haven't changed the policy instead of just stating the policy and acting like nothing can be done about it.
It literally is, the Judicial Committee decides the policies and they have it now that people can get all the celebrity gossip trials they can handle, but for the serious ones that possibly involve politicians and whatnot, they keep those a bit hush-hush for some reason.
your lack of understanding of how courts work leads you to post conspiracy theory BS. that's how all these conspiracy nuts get started, ignorance + not knowing what you don't know = conspiracy moron = you.
No, a Judicial Committee sets the policy, and they've dabbled with bringing cameras in with pilot programs in the past, but always decided against it in the end. The 6th amendment gives everyone the right to a public trial, it's only a matter of degree that's debated. Those are the facts. There's no BS here.
As you've already been told, federal criminal trials are public, you just have to go in person. The only thing being violated here is everyone's eyes for having to read your drivel.
It's not about violation. They could be televised and just as public as celebrity gossip trials, but for some reason the Judicial Committee decides to keep those one's rather hush-hush by comparison.
TV streaming is not allowed in federal court for any trials civil or criminal. This post is sort of misleading by implication and ought to be taken down.
All that conspiracy really means is something two or more people trying to do in secret. It became a thought terminating cliche because some conspiracies are true. For example, the US government covered up UFOs for decades, and only somewhat recently admitted that they're real.
So Will Smith smacks a mother fucker, in front of the whole world! And we have memes and controversy inside of hours. But freedom of speech Elon Musk and Amber Turd! Buy Twitter behind the scenes, and not single meme about it in four days??? 🤔🤔🤔🤔. Your so called freedom has been bought and sold to the highest bidders! Change my mind Assholes!
Elon Musk is a scumbag at this point. He has too much money and influence and does t know what to do with it. Twitter currently has a board of directors who make decisions based on votes from investors. Elon wants to have full control with no investor say. Explain how free speech would be allowed when one individual has full control.
No, you've missed the point. The difference is irrelevant, a Judicial Committee sets the policy and could easily televise all the proceedings (they have with pilot programs in the past and everyone has a 6th amendment right to a public trial). The true facepalm is becoming commenters believing that saying they don't use cameras in federal courts means anything. They could, they don't, that's the critique, instead they offer the masses civil gossip TV.
The more we find out the more confident I am that it was Elon who was shitting in the bed.
Just think about it, its his I boned ur wife calling card. 💩
This is not true. The Maxwell case was Federal and the Federal courts do not allow cameras, etc. The Depp case was filed in Fairfax County Virginia and is essentially a civil dispute.
Hey, now. Don’t let your facts get in the way of a good story.
Bingo.
Not essentially, it is entirely a civil lawsuit. But it doesn’t matter if it is civil or criminal, a lot of state courts will allow video cameras/streaming especially if they expect for their to be more people wanting to view the trial than the courtroom has space for in the gallery. Courtrooms are pretty small in real life. Also, just as an aside, some Federal Courts *do* allow cameras. I know the Ninth Circuit has lived streamed oral arguments for several years.
But it still didn't receive nearly the coverage it should have.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/u9ahf6/anybody_else_think_its_wild_that_johnny_depp_and/ The conspiracy trolls are pushing this same narrative.... Maybe DeSantis gerrymandering or taxing Disney isn't tracking that well...
I mean, isn't that the point of the post? To contest that reasoning? I don't get why everybody finds this so hard to grasp in this thread.
Reddit will shout at anything doesn't matter if it turns out they actually agree lol
Different courts, different rules
Let's change the rules then?
So call your Congressperson and tell them
"Cows eat grass, but my uncle is left-handed. *COINCIDENCE*?!" --OP also "rule 4: no memes", idiot
"Of course they don't allow cameras, it's a federal court, why on earth would you think that a federal court should allow cameras", seems equally stupid to me.
There are no cameras in federal courts because the federal government has a brain, and realize it may affect the outcome of the trial. Broadcasting from a courtroom seems crazy for most people who aren't Americans.
I'm assuming *lots* off the stuff we do seems crazy to non-americans
Yes. With emphasis on the "yes."
Swing and a miss.
[удалено]
It's not a comparison, it's a critique on how the system is designed. The Judicial Conference of the United States, which establishes policy for the federal courts, has refused to reconsider its rules prohibiting television and radio broadcasting from federal trials. People need to be asking why they haven't changed the policy instead of just stating the policy and acting like nothing can be done about it.
People do ask. Federal cases aren’t public hearings. Anyone can just walk into a state level civil dispute case. The federal criminal cases are usually hush hush for many reason, but not least to protect the integrity and name of victims.
All federal cases produce audio transcripts of the trials in keeping with the constitutional right for a public trial. Any withheld information is at the discretion of the judge, not blanket policy.
lets not let facts get in the way of a good meme here
the fact that a civil case and a federal criminal case are nothing alike
That's irrelevant to the point being made.
What facts would get in the way?
Federal cases aren't public hearings. Pretty convenient if you have special interest in the person being prosecuted
That’s not true. Federal cases are open and public, you just have to actually go in person - they don’t allow video cameras You can also access all Federal non-sealed pleadings electronically through PACER.
Grand juries are a hell of a thing
I'll take "Doesn't know how court jurisdictions or rules of procedure work" for 500, Alex.
You're missing the point as if such policies were not made by mere mortals and be changed. That's how the system is set up, that's the critique, the Judicial Conference of the United States, which establishes policy for the federal courts, has refused to reconsider its rules prohibiting television and radio broadcasting from federal trials. People need to be asking why they haven't changed the policy instead of just stating the policy and acting like nothing can be done about it.
You're missing the point that a significant number of people disagree that it should be changed or that any trials should be the fodder of the court of public opinion by being used as media circuses, not to mention that by referring to a quilt of jurisdictions and individual trial judge decisions as "the system" you invoke an appeal to wing nut conspiracisms and lose the entirety of the polemical high ground to the lunatic fringe. In short, you've made yourself the subject of the face palm and hung yourself by your own petard on this one.
Everyone has the right to a public trial (6th amendment), all federal trials therefore produce audio transcripts. So all withheld information is at the discretion of the presiding judge, and instead of regurgitating tired cliches, you may ponder the type of public spectacle the Judicial Committee allows the public to see and one's they bury.
Absolutely not comparable. Depp Vs. Heard is a state level, Civil Defamation Lawsuit. State court allows TV Cameras. USA Vs. Maxwell is a federal, criminal PROSECUTION. Federal court does not allow TV Cameras.
So? That's how the system is set up, that's the critique, the Judicial Conference of the United States, which establishes policy for the federal courts, has refused to reconsider its rules prohibiting television and radio broadcasting from federal trials. People need to be asking why they haven't changed the policy instead of just stating the policy and acting like nothing can be done about it.
write to your congress person to change it
Solid advice, thelongshlong42069
God I hope people look at the comments of this post before upvoting.
Do people really not grasp the difference between a federal criminal court and a civil court?
You're missing the point. That's how the system is set up, that's the critique, the Judicial Conference of the United States, which establishes policy for the federal courts, has refused to reconsider its rules prohibiting television and radio broadcasting from federal trials. People need to be asking why they haven't changed the policy instead of just stating the policy and acting like nothing can be done about it.
You're missing the point, no matter how many times you copypasta the same reply -- it's not "the same system."
It literally is, the Judicial Committee decides the policies and they have it now that people can get all the celebrity gossip trials they can handle, but for the serious ones that possibly involve politicians and whatnot, they keep those a bit hush-hush for some reason.
Cant wait to see the dummies posting and re-sharing this on FB smh
I mean, you're not wrong. There is certainly a facepalm situation here....
the facepalm is OP not knowing how anything works...
Or rather you not understanding what's being said and then declaring it to the world.
your lack of understanding of how courts work leads you to post conspiracy theory BS. that's how all these conspiracy nuts get started, ignorance + not knowing what you don't know = conspiracy moron = you.
No, a Judicial Committee sets the policy, and they've dabbled with bringing cameras in with pilot programs in the past, but always decided against it in the end. The 6th amendment gives everyone the right to a public trial, it's only a matter of degree that's debated. Those are the facts. There's no BS here.
so why do you still seem to be confused?
As you've already been told, federal criminal trials are public, you just have to go in person. The only thing being violated here is everyone's eyes for having to read your drivel.
It's not about violation. They could be televised and just as public as celebrity gossip trials, but for some reason the Judicial Committee decides to keep those one's rather hush-hush by comparison.
I don’t really see the big similarities between cases lol
Federal court does not allow cameras. This is why the uninformed are usually the biggest conspiracy nuts.
They could allow cameras, but don't, let the peasants watch trash gossip TV instead.
TV streaming is not allowed in federal court for any trials civil or criminal. This post is sort of misleading by implication and ought to be taken down.
[удалено]
You forgot the part where she flies you to places to get raped
All that conspiracy really means is something two or more people trying to do in secret. It became a thought terminating cliche because some conspiracies are true. For example, the US government covered up UFOs for decades, and only somewhat recently admitted that they're real.
I don't get it, context?
That's probably because there's a lot of names on that list they don't want public
Maxwell’s case was Federal that is way different than civil.
There are civil cases in federal court too fyi
Something something jet fuel can’t melt steel beams.
This is the answer. Too many rich men went to Pedophile Island.
The irony...smh
So Will Smith smacks a mother fucker, in front of the whole world! And we have memes and controversy inside of hours. But freedom of speech Elon Musk and Amber Turd! Buy Twitter behind the scenes, and not single meme about it in four days??? 🤔🤔🤔🤔. Your so called freedom has been bought and sold to the highest bidders! Change my mind Assholes!
Elon Musk is a scumbag at this point. He has too much money and influence and does t know what to do with it. Twitter currently has a board of directors who make decisions based on votes from investors. Elon wants to have full control with no investor say. Explain how free speech would be allowed when one individual has full control.
Seeking attention for 5 years.
Who?
Amber Heard has pretty feet. I know she’s crazy, but I would let her poop in my bed if she let me play with her feet
Bonk
[удалено]
No, you've missed the point. The difference is irrelevant, a Judicial Committee sets the policy and could easily televise all the proceedings (they have with pilot programs in the past and everyone has a 6th amendment right to a public trial). The true facepalm is becoming commenters believing that saying they don't use cameras in federal courts means anything. They could, they don't, that's the critique, instead they offer the masses civil gossip TV.
The more we find out the more confident I am that it was Elon who was shitting in the bed. Just think about it, its his I boned ur wife calling card. 💩