• RipLemmDotEE@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Read the article.

    Judge ordered no cameras in the court, and even if they were allowed, why would a judge allow one party to bring their own cameras that have facial recognition capabilities?

    Camera in courtrooms are for transparency with the public, not for the defense to get facial scans of jurors and witnesses.

    • totesmygoat@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      All it said was. Cameras not allowed unless the judge says so. not that this judge didn’t allow. And a judge being petty as a way of letting a billionaire get away with anything they want is pretty on point for the American justice system.

      • RipLemmDotEE@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 hours ago

        The use of recording devices and cameras is generally banned in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

        Directly from the article.

        • totesmygoat@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          “Judicial officers have the discretion to place limitations on video recording and photography in their courtroom,”

          Generally, and discretion. And also… Performative… Has been the usual kid gloves these techbro douchebag have been “disciplined” by the courts. So I was wondering if this was the case. The article wasn’t clear. And using meta glasses wouldn’t stop these guys from just grabbing all the cell phone data and cross reference with the massive database they all possess.