For what little it's worth, I'm planning on being at the Brookens Center this evening to live-blog the election results. Unless I have major problems with my Treo, I should be able to get online out there.
Also for what little it's worth, I think it's completely unacceptable that the Brookens Center has wireless internet access, but doesn't allow the public access to it for County Board meetings and events like tonight. Taxpayers are providing the revenue to pay for it, but somehow we can't be trusted to use it.
Making government more accessible is something which both Republicans and Democrats talk about during campaigns. Allowing journalists, bloggers and citizens access to the internet in our publicly funded buildings would be a nice step to take. The next time you run into your County Board member, please let them know how much you'd appreciate publicly accessible wireless internet in our County's main facilities (Brookens and the Courthouse).
I'll get off my soapbox now. Thanks for listening.
Gordy,
Since many new computers are fully capable of recording both audio and video you are never going to get to bring one into the courthouse. It would be nice if the free hub in Urbana had a stronger signal though.
"Since many new computers are fully capable of recording both audio and video you are never going to get to bring one into the courthouse. It would be nice if the free hub in Urbana had a stronger signal though."
Good point, although I think the "no recording of court proceedings" rule is antiquated and should be eliminated.
There's no reason not to have public access at Brookens, though.
Good point, although I think the "no recording of court proceedings" rule is antiquated and should be eliminated.
Doesn't watching Judge Ito give you a little pause? Do we really want all judges putting on a show for the cameras?
Gordy,
I disagree again. That rule is in place to guarantee that there is a true and correct record. What would happen if people could make (and then naturally edit) their own recordings? I don't see any good coming from that.
"Doesn't watching Judge Ito give you a little pause? Do we really want all judges putting on a show for the cameras?"
Is there some sort of compelling reason make it more difficult for the public to view public proceedings?
A few grandstanding judges isn't sufficient reason, to me.
"I disagree again. That rule is in place to guarantee that there is a true and correct record. What would happen if people could make (and then naturally edit) their own recordings? I don't see any good coming from that."
Why couldn't the courts keep their own true and correct record, just as they do with a stenographer?
I don't see any more danger from editing video or audio than I do from editing stenographer's transcripts. Plus, you'd have multiple "true and correct" records to use as a baseline for comparison. When it comes to records, isn't redundency almost always a positive?
Is there some sort of compelling reason make it more difficult for the public to view public proceedings?
Courtroom efficiency? I am not sold one way or the other on this one, just throwing some stuff out there - what would Judge Steigman say?
While there is a new local rule against bringing cellphones into the courthouse, there is no rule that prohibits someone from bringing a tape recorder (dictation type perhaps?) into a courtroom.
It would, however violate illinois law to tape the proceedings.
The cellphone ban is a pain, because you have to find somewhere to put your cellphone if you come to the courthouse for other kinds of business and don't even go near a courtroom.
I think the media (professional or not) should be banned from court rooms. Think of the White case. Everything in the media points to his guilt. But what if you were in his shoes and knew you were innocent? Having the cameras there recording your trial and broadcasting it is tantamount to conviction. The media observing public rarely has the attention span to see the thing through till the final verdict, unless you're OJ Simpson, and of course, we all "know" he's guilty. I simply would not want to be paraded around like that if I knew I was innocent, even when found guilty the suspicion would always be there.
That said, I don't see why a bailiff couldn't be made available to check for cellphones at the court doors. I had to walk home from a hearing once (not at the county courthouse) because I couldn't find a payphone.
Maybe the county should rent a small space to someone to provide a "phone check" service.