Toledo
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 3,170
- City
- Amsterdam, Upstate NY
- Country
- United States
...I'm not particularly happy about this lawsuit as it means a lot more Sussexes on the front pages but I do think it's completely fascinating in a strange way that a) the Markles refuse to be like most other families of royals or famous people and basically take an oath of silence and B) they are doing exactly what the Sussexes are doing to the BRF.
@Toldeo Thank you for clarifying that both parties have to give consent for a trial being televised. None are in the UK so I wasn't aware of the rules. I was thinking of the ****show that was the Heard/Depp trial for public consumption.
Re Cameras in the Courtroom vs Televised Trials two different things and each state has their set of rules within the policies. In simple terms, a case might be recorded, but televising is a whole different thing.
For example, the recent Depp vs Heard case is often referred as a mistake for Ms. Heard's team to agree to televise it. It all backfired on her.
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/989/cameras-in-the-courtroom
...As of 2006, all 50 states allowed some type of camera presence in their courtrooms. Fifteen states moderately restricted coverage, and 19 had a more liberal approach. Sixteen states had rules that disallowed most coverage.
201 Pa. Code § 1910
No witness or party who expresses any prior objection to the judge shall be photographed, nor shall the testimony of such witness or party be broadcast or telecast.
Permission for the broadcasting, televising, recording and photographing of any civil nonjury proceeding shall have first been expressly granted by the judge, and under such conditions as the judge may prescribe in accordance with the guidelines contained in this rule.