Whereas if you have a camera in the courtroom, there's no filtering. What you see is what's there.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
If you have a camera in the courtroom, there's no filtering. What you see is what's there.
The problem with not having a camera is that one must trust the analysis of a reporter who's telling you what occurred in the courtroom. You have to take into consideration the filtering effect of that person's own biases.
If you take the cameras out of the courtroom, then you hide a certain measure of truth from the public.
I certainly think cameras ought to be in courtrooms.
Cameras in the courtroom is a great idea.
I think cameras should be in the courtroom, but they need to be managed properly. You need a judge to hold the line.
I have not fully had the opportunity to evaluate the impact of cameras in the courtroom.
And if you take the cameras out of the courtroom, then you hide, I think, a certain measure of truth from the public, and I think that's very important for the American public to know.
The Court's objection to cameras may be much more a product of history and process than an unwillingness to be placed in the public spotlight.
When you have a child victim, I don't think cameras should be in the courtroom, ever.
No opposing quotes found.