rom that case for support; Justice Harlan recognized that the day might come when television could safely be admitted to our courtrooms because all reasonable likelihood that its use in courtrooms may disparage the judicial process would have been dissipated. Court-TV points out that when Estes was decided, the technology was crude and intrusive, but that todays broadcast equipment can be set up in a way that it is virtually undetectable. The most important point, according to Court-TV, is that none of the cases against cameras in the courtroom dealt with an issue so important to the public interest and concern, not only of the United States, but also of the world. While the Senate is expected to pass legislation requiring the closed circuit broadcasting of the case to certain cities for the families of the victims, Court-TV contends that many more people can legitimately claim to be victims or survivors of victims of the attacks. Therefore, Court-TV attests that the trial should be available to more than the limited audience. Here, where the proceedings are certain to generate international scrutiny, the media will play an even more important role not only as the eyes and ears of the citizens of America, but also as a window on our system for justice for citizens of the world. In section D2, the defense acknowledges that there remains concern that sensationalist reporting about court proceedings is itself an affront to the dignity of the judiciary. , but contends that their own coverage of the trial will be complete and responsible, thus not causing concern. They argue that without cameras in the courtroom, the only information given to the public will come from the few members of the press or public that were able to attend, or from those simply guessing what has occurred. This gives rise to rumor, heresy, and false testimony. It is entirely possible that statements will be reported out of context, and therefore will misinform the...
