I would have loved to have a device to record the pre-trial banter in a state court prior to a recent case involving a family member. The prosecutor was going on at length about a recent event where they had driven to Florida for a vacation and got pulled over for speeding, but was soon let go after they told them who they were and who they worked for.

I wanted very much to stand and ask what other laws did not apply to them, if they were free to ignore those pertaining to automobiles, or even if they felt they should be held responsible if they were to break the same law they were charging my family member for.

The standard reason given is privacy for the victim and jury, less jury poisoning if there needs to be a retrial, people can be a little more or at ease, etc.

It definitely depends on the court, OJ's trial was on TV.

I cannot imagine FISA Courts having victims or jury. I thought it was all decided by the judges. Is it not so?

That's true, but all FISA proceedings are classified, so there's no way they would allow cameras.

Well, they might allow cameras -- "classified" does not mean "no records" -- but any photos or video would also be classified.

They certainly wouldn't allow the media (or the public) in the courtroom, with or without cameras, or allow the media/public access to anything any cameras they did allow in captured.

Yes, but the rule is a part of general federal court procedure rules.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_53

It's up to the court (and maybe to the judge?). There's a pilot program that the District Court for Massachusetts is doing to allow them:

http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/general/Cameras.html

"Why cameras are banned on courtrooms? I remember the last US trial news all of them had sketches like this instead of photos and videos... "

In general, because the judiciary has watched what the "news media" has done to every other aspect of life, and doesn't want trials and judging to become a popularity contest.

They try to strike a balance by doing things like having most court of appeals release live or near-live audio versions of arguments, allowing tweeting from court rooms, whatever.

Just not the "let's put up the satellites and get nancy grace on live"

> Why cameras are banned on courtrooms?

Privacy for the people being tried, and in many legitimate cases to protect identities. I suspect they just vetoed them rather than having to decide.

Besides, the vast majority of interesting content is captured by audio recording equipment.

A "let me Google that for you" response is rude, and using a link shortener to hide a URL is poor form. For the curious it goes to http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Why+cameras+are+banned+on+courtrooms%3F...

Rude... what's the word for asking basic easily googlable questions? Is it annoying? Is it spammy? Is it presumptuous (that we should spend our time answering googlable questions)?

If you don't want to answer it, don't answer it. Leave it to motivated people.

The question wasn't just a request for raw data. It was also an expression of frustration and an invitation to debate.

Let's say it was useless. Responding with a content-free and condescending comment did nothing to further the conversation. You're using more space on the page to say nothing and dragging down the tone of the conversation.

It provides OP, and others, with information as to why it was useless to help prevent future useless comments, improving the overall comment quality of Hacker News. Albeit, my method was crass.

I thought that question would provoke some good discussion.