As our country is moving into a society of transparency through tools on the Web such as YouTube and interactive blogs, should our court system provide more transparency of proceedings by allowing cameras in the courtroom? This question was examined from U.S. and European perspectives at the ABA International Law Spring Meeting in a panel titled “Freedom of the Press and Coverage of the Law.”

Defamatory meaning is reflective of cultural norms. To call someone gay or homosexual in Spain is considered one of the worst insults, as it is never to be publicly discussed. In the U.K. to be named “mean-spirited” will tarnish your reputation. Just as these cultural norms vary from the U.S., so does the interpretation of the right to have freedom of the press.

Whether to allow cameras in the courtroom has been the part of the latest in the debate about the court system, with the strongest argument in favor being the First Amendment. Although some states allow cameras under various levels of restrictions, the federal court system has yet to succumb to allowing cameras in the courtroom. However, about a month ago the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act. This act, if passed into law, would allow the live transmission of federal court proceedings by the press.

Those in favor of allowing cameras argue that the public has a right to see and understand what goes on in the courtroom, and know that those involved in the proceedings are ethical and held accountable for their actions. Additionally, it is argued that it would help people trust in and give more credibility to our judicial system. Arguments made against cameras in the courtroom by members of the U.S. judicial system mainly revolve around concerns of possible influences the media may have on a fair trial and the potential of extra pressure affecting participants’ demeanor. However, trials are already open to the public, allowing television to broadcast it merely allows those who cannot attend to view proceedings.

In Europe the press has very limited access to court proceedings. Only final rulings are available to the public, but not the actual case files which document the detail of the trial. In fact, in the United Kingdom the Crown owns copyright of court papers. An individual or organization can’t make copies without risking infringement. The U.S. media has the absence privilege, meaning that it can report what was said in court documents, but in Europe journalists don’t have that protection. Therefore, they are severely limited in their ability to report and share information with the public about court proceedings.

The European court system defends its decision, saying that there is no consensus in European law that the media has a right to know about or view proceedings. Specifically, cameras in the courtroom are prohibited as the government believes it needs to protect the judicial system from counteractive majority rule -- that cameras could alter the demeanorof those involved in the trial, and that the trial may be interpreted by journalistic filtering and misinform the public.

The majority of the panelists agreed that the more publicized court proceedings are, the better the prevention against a corrupted judicial system. In the end, who the courts belong to, it was asked. The people, not the litigators, was the response and therefore, at the minimum, documents should be made available to the public.

Panelists included: Midwin Charles, Midwin Charles & Associates LLC; Charles Glasser, Bloomberg; and Darian Pavli, Open Society Justice Initiative. Bart Legum, program chair, was the moderator.