Well indeed, I suppose I should have also said "aside from photography being disallowed". Perhaps to phrase another way, why could anyone be against the reintroduction of photography into courtrooms?
Most jurors would probably object to having their faces seen in public for concerns of retribution after the trial (and/or influencing during the trial), particularly in the brave new world of facial recognition tech.
I think it's an extension of trying to avoid the effects of "conviction in the court of public opinion". Imagine seeing a coworker on trial on the news.
Or imagine being on trial, declared innocent, but most people just saw the fact you were on trial and recognize you by your picture.
There's also details like having the jury's faces be out there.
Personally I think a lot of this is "solvable", and having video footage in places like the supreme court would make coverage of it a bit easier for places like TV. Say what you will about TV dumbing things down and only taking fragments, having more people pay attention to the judicial system would be a net positive IMO
This sounds like an implicit discussion about semi-secret courts for the pure reason of defending a potentially innocent defendant.
What happens if X is tried for $crime and is found not guilty? Court of public opinion may still see them as guilty, and keep away rental properties, jobs, and social network away from them. And now since communication is in ms across the world, perhaps we ought to come back to this.
I could easily see it being perceived as distracting and leading to different behavior than is explicitly necessary for justice.
Like pauses until camera flashes stop, lawyers grandstanding more, consciously planning grandiose gestures for the purpose of having the picture taken and shared, etc.
