I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE HONOR OF BEING YOUR SPEAKER THIS AFTERNOON. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT EVENT, HONORING IMPORTANT LEADERS FOR AN IMPORTANT CAUSE. 

	REX HEINKE, WHO HAS OFTEN SERVED AS OUR OWN COUNSEL IN LOS ANGELES, SPEAKS SOFTLY ON FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES, BUT ALWAYS STRONGLY AND BRILLIANTLY.

	SIMILARLY, THIS BRANCH OF THE ACLU HAS A LONG, PROUD 75 YEAR HISTORY. WHETHER THE CAUSE HAS BEEN UPTON SINCLAIR'S RIGHT TO READ THE BILL OF RIGHTS ON A STREET CORNER, THE DE-SEGREGATION OF THIS GREAT CITY'S SCHOOLS, OR FIGHTING TO GET THE MOTOR VOTER ACT IMPLEMENTED, THIS ORGANIZATION, TOO, HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE.

	I WANT TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY IN THE SPIRIT OF THAT LEGACY BY RAISING TWO ISSUES  THAT MIGHT BE UNPOPULAR. 

	I DO SO, HOWEVER, KNOWING THAT MY AUDIENCE CHERISHES UNPOPULAR SPEECH. SO I'M CONFIDENT YOU'LL AT LEAST LISTEN.

	FIRST, I WANT TO IDENTIFY AN ACTIVITY OF FREE SPEECH THAT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE JOURNALISM AT ITS CORE, ON WHICH THE ACLU HAS SOMETIMES BEEN ON THE WRONG SIDE. 

	YOU SEE I SPEAK TO YOU TODAY AS THE CEO AND EDITOR IN CHIEF OF A NEWS ORGANIZATION THAT IS THE ONLY JOURNALISM ORGANIZATION IN THIS COUNTRY THAT HAS TO JUSTIFY ITS VERY EXISTENCE EVERY DAY BEFORE JUDGES AND LEGISLATORS. 

	EVERY DAY, SOME JUDGE OR GROUP OF JUDGES WANTS TO DEBATE THE MERITS OF THE NEWS WE GATHER AND DISSEMINATE. EVERY DAY ONE LEGISLATURE OR ANOTHER -- LAST MONTH IT HAPPENED TO HAVE BEEN TEXAS, A FEW MONTHS AGO IT WAS NEW YORK -- ASKS US TO TELL THEM WHAT WE'VE DONE FOR THEM AND THEIR CONSTITUENTS LATELY. ARE WE CASTING THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN A GOOD OR BAD LIGHT? ARE WE TOO SLEAZY? 

	IS THIS ENTERTAINMENT OR NEWS? 

	ARE WE JUST TRYING TO MAKE MONEY, OR ARE WE GOOD PEOPLE WITH A GOOD PURPOSE? 

	IN NEW YORK I FOUND MYSELF A WHILE BACK LOBBYING A LEGISLATOR WHO WANTED TO KNOW IF COURT TV WAS GOING TO COVER HIS UPCOMING CORRUPTION TRIAL? IN WASHINGTON, THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY ASKS US TO JUSTIFY -- AND THEN VETOES -- OUR NEWS GATHERING IN FEDERAL CIVIL TRIALS, PRIMARILY, I'M TOLD, BECAUSE THE OVERALL MEDIA COVERAGE OF A STATE CRIMINAL CASE IN CALIFORNIA (YOU KNOW THE CASE) SEEMS, WELL, SO TAWDRY. 

	NOW, THE FACT IS I'M GOOD AT JUSTIFYING COURT TV. I'M GOOD AT ARGUING THAT WE ARE GOOD PEOPLE WITH A GOOD PURPOSE. GOOD AT EXPLAINING THAT IN A DEMOCRACY PEOPLE SHOULD SEE THEIR GOVERNMENT WORK. THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S CHOICE TO DEPRIVE SOMEONE OF HIS OR HER FREEDOM IS THE MOST BASIC CHOICE A GOVERNMENT MAKES, AND THAT IT OUGHT TO BE PUBLIC AND SEEN BY AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. 

	THAT THE TORT REFORM DEBATE MIGHT BE MORE INFORMED IF PEOPLE COULD SEE TORTS LITIGATED (AND SEE THAT THE SYSTEM IS NOT NEARLY AS BAD AS SOME WOULD HAVE US THINK). 

	I'M GREAT AT INVOKING OUR NOW-FAMILIAR RHETORIC: THAT IF WE DIDN'T COVER THE TRIAL WE'D ONLY BE LEAVING IT TO THE TABLOIDS AND THE SOUNDBITERS AND THE HOLLYWOOD DOCUDRAMA WRITERS. 

	AND IN FRONT OF JUDGE ITO WE DID A GREAT JOB -- QUARTERBACKED BY FLOYD ABRAMS AND RON OLSON AND KELLI SAGER, AND HELPED BY DOUG MIRELL -- MAKING THE CASE FOR CAMERAS IN THE COURTS. AND, I THINK THAT CASE HAS BEEN PROVEN OUT SO FAR.

	AS AN ASIDE, I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE CAMERA IN THE COURT IN THE SIMPSON CASE HAS INDEED WORKED AS AN ANTIDOTE TO ALL THE MISUNDERSTANDING AND CYNICISM THAT INFECTS THE PUBLIC VIEW OF THE LEGAL PROCESS. IT'S AN INFECTION THAT IS THE RESULT OF DARKNESS, FOR I WOULD ARGUE THAT UNTIL COURT TV, THE LEGAL PROCESS WAS A MUCH TALKED ABOUT BUT LITTLE SEEN ASPECT OF OUR GOVERNMENT. 

	THERE ARE THOSE WHO SAY THAT THE CAMERA IN THAT COURTROOM DOWN THE STREET IN THE SIMPSON CASE HAS BEEN BAD BECAUSE AT TIMES IT HAS MADE THE SYSTEM LOOK SLOW OR EVEN CLUMSY, AND MADE PEOPLE LOOK INCOMPETENT OR AWKWARD OR WORSE. WELL, IF SOME ARE, OR WERE, BEHAVING BADLY OR IF THE SYSTEM IS, OR WAS, MOVING SLOWLY, SHOULDN'T PEOPLE KNOW THAT? AND KNOW WHY?  ISN'T THAT, AFTER ALL, THE PURPOSE OF JOURNALISM THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY WROTE THE FIRST AMENDMENT?  

	COURT TV VIEWERS NOW KNOW THAT IN CALIFORNIA TRIALS OFTEN TAKE TWICE AS LONG AS THEY TAKE IN OTHER STATES.  FOR ME THE ISSUE ISN'T WHETHER THAT'S A GOOD OR BAD THING.  RATHER, IT'S AN ISSUE OF INFORMED PUBLIC DEBATE.  SHOULDN'T PEOPLE KNOW THAT?  AND SEE IT HAPPEN?

	AND SHOULDN'T THOSE INVOLVED KNOW THAT EVERYONE IS WATCHING, SO THAT IF THEY CAN IMPROVE THINGS THEY WILL BE THAT MUCH MORE MOTIVATED TO DO SO?

	TO BE SURE, I DON'T THINK THE PROCESS IS GOING TO COME OUT LOOKING ALL THAT BAD IN THE SIMPSON CASE. I KNOW THAT IT'S FASHIONABLE TO ASSUME A HUNG JURY. AND NO LESS AN EXPERT THAN PETER BART OF VARIETY RECENTLY ARGUED IN A RECENT COLUMN THAT THE TRIAL HAS BEEN LOUSY TELEVISION, SHOWING A LOUSY SYSTEM THAT IS DESTINED TO PRODUCE A TIME-WASTING, MONEY WASTING, AUDIENCE FRUSTRATING HUNG JURY.

	WELL, I'LL MAKE ONE PREDICTION TODAY ABOUT THE SIMPSON TRIAL. THERE WILL BE A VERDICT, AND IT'LL BE A VERDICT THAT MOST PEOPLE WHO'VE WATCHED THE TRIAL UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT. JUST AS THEY DID IN THE ANOTHER NOTORIOUS COURT TV TRIAL, THAT OF WILLIAM KENNEDY SMITH, WHERE, I SHOULD ADD, NO ONE COULD ARGUE THAT THE DULL, MONOTONE PROSECUTOR IN THE CASE, MOIRA LASCH, WENT HOLLYWOOD BECAUSE THE CAMERAS WERE THERE. 

	SIMILARLY, MY ANSWER TO THOSE WHO SAY THAT THE LAWYERS OR THE JUDGE IN THE SIMPSON CASE ARE PLAYING TO THE CAMERA IS SIMPLE: THOSE WHO KNOW JOHNNIE COCHRAN OR BOB SHAPIRO OR MARCIA CLARK OR JUDGE ITO KNOW THEY ARE NOT ACTING OUT OF CHARACTER. THEY ARE NOT ACTING ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN THEY WOULD IN ANY OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASE SIMPLY BECAUSE A CAMERA IS IN THE COURTROOM ALONGSIDE THE HUNDREDS OF CAMERAS OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM AND THE THOUSANDS OF REPORTERS WHO ARE THERE --   AND WOULD BE THERE TO COVER THIS TRIAL WITH OR WITHOUT OUR CAMERA. 

	AND IF OCCASIONALLY THEY ARE PLAYING TO THE CAMERA WITH IRRELEVANT ASIDES, THEN THAT'S NOT THE CAMERA'S FAULT; IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE JUDGE, WHO COULD EASILY STOP THEM -- AND, IN THIS CASE, WHO CLEARLY HAS NOW STOPPED THEM.

	SPEAKING OF JUDGE ITO, I AGREE THAT IN SOME INSTANCES EARLIER IN THE TRIAL HE MAY HAVE BEEN TOO TOLERANT OF THE LAWYERS. BUT IN MOST RESPECTS I THINK HE'S GOTTEN A BUM RAP. NOT BECAUSE HE HASN'T MADE MISTAKES, BUT RATHER BECAUSE HE SEEMS TO BE BEING HELD TO AN IMPOSSIBLE STANDARD. 

	AND THAT, I WILL ADMIT, PROBABLY HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE LIVE CAMERA. WHAT I MEAN IS THAT NEITHER JUDGE ITO NOR ANYONE ELSE IN REAL LIFE CAN LIVE UP TO THE STANDARDS THAT CONVENTIONAL TELEVISION SETS FOR ITS CHARACTERS IN THE COURTROOM OR ANYPLACE ELSE:  TO BE QUICK, ALWAYS SURE-FOOTED, AND ALWAYS SPEAK IN TIGHT, CLIPPED SENTENCES.

	LET'S REMEMBER THAT JUDGE ITO IS THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE ACTION IN THE LONGEST RUNNING, LIVE TELEVISION EVENT IN HISTORY. IMAGINE YOURSELF BEING CALLED ON TO MAKE DOZENS OF DECISIONS, MANY OF THEM SPONTANEOUS AND JUST AS MANY HIGHLY COMPLICATED, EVERY DAY FOR MONTHS BEFORE A LIVE TV AUDIENCE. 

	WHO WOULDN'T MAKE SOME MISTAKES? OR TAKE TOO LONG FOR THE TASTES OF A VIEWING PUBLIC THAT HAS BEEN TRAINED TO EXPECT THAT EVERYTHING ON TELEVISION WILL HAPPEN QUICKLY AND PERFECTLY ON SCHEDULE?  AND MAKE PERFECT SENSE.

	I SHOULD ADD THAT THE VIEWING PUBLIC --  WANTING A BETTER, FASTER SHOW THAT DOESN'T WASTE TIME -- ISN'T TRAINED, YET, TO WORRY ABOUT THE ULTIMATE WASTE OF TIME THAT JUDGE ITO IS RIGHTFULLY WORRIED ABOUT. AND THAT, OF COURSE, IS THE WASTE OF TIME THAT WOULD COME WITH A CASE OVERTURNED ON APPEAL A YEAR OR TWO AFTER IT'S OVER AND SENT BACK FOR ANOTHER TRIAL.  

	THE ANSWER, THOUGH, ISN'T TO BAN THE CAMERA OR TO GET A HOOK FOR THE JUDGE. RATHER IT'S TO ALLOW THE TELEVISION VIEWERS TO COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT REAL LIFE JUSTICE, IF IS TO BE JUST, SOMETIMES WORKS SLOWLY AND NOT ACCORDING TO SCRIPT. AND THAT IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN THE FICTION VERSIONS SEEN ON TV OR THE SILVER SCREEN. 

	AND I SUSPECT THAT AS TIME AND COURT TV GOES ON, MORE AUDIENCES WILL UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THAT, JUST AS THEY WILL PUSH FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SYSTEM THAT THE ACTUAL PROBLEMS IN THE SIMPSON CASE HAVE ILLUSTRATED. INDEED, ONE COULD ARGUE THAT THE PUBLICITY IN THE CASE -- COURTESY OF THE CAMERA -- THAT HAS FOCUSED ON THE TEDIOUSNESS OF THE PROCESS HAS SEEMED LATELY TO HAVE ENCOURAGED THOSE INVOLVED TO MOVE THINGS ALONG FASTER. WHICH MEANS THAT THE PUBLIC SPOTLIGHT HAS, AS USUAL, DONE WHAT OPENNESS IN A DEMOCRACY ALWAYS DOES: ENCOURAGED CORRECTIVE ACTION. 

	ABOVE ALL, THESE AUDIENCES ARE LEARNING FROM THE SIMPSON CASE WHAT I ALWAYS ARGUE THAT COURT TV TEACHES -- THAT REAL LIFE JUSTICE ISN'T AS SIMPLE AS FICTION JUSTICE OR SOUNDBITE JUSTICE OR TABLOID HEADLINE JUSTICE. IN FICTION AND TABLOID JUSTICE, THE CRIMINALS OFTEN GET OFF BECAUSE OF SOME SOFT-HEADED JUDGES OR DUMB JURIES OR STUPID LEGAL TECHNICALITIES. OR THE GOOD-GUY PROSECUTORS ARE FORCED TO STRUGGLE TO ACHIEVE THE OBVIOUSLY-GOOD RESULT OF CONVICTING THEM DESPITE THESE IMPEDIMENTS.

	IN REAL LIFE JUSTICE THOSE JUDGES AND JURIES ARE DOING NO MORE AND NO LESS THAN STRUGGLING TO ACHIEVE JUSTICE AND APPLY THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 

	AND THE TECHNICALITIES ARE CALLED THE CONSTITUTION. 

	AND THE NEEDLESS COMPLICATIONS ARE THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE THAT ARE AMONG THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OF TURNING LEGISLATORS' LAWS INTO ACTUAL JUSTICE.

	MY POINT IS THAT THE CAMERA IN THE COURT DOES A SERVICE BY SHOWING THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AS IT REALLY WORKS, NOT HOW WE MIGHT ASSUME OR HOPE IT WORKS.  AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY PEOPLE ARE BEING ATTRACTED TO THIS KIND OF TELEVISION, FORSAKING THEIR SOAP OPERAS AND FREAK OF THE DAY TALK SHOWS TO WATCH OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.  

	AND I'M NOT SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT THE SIMPSON CASE.  COURT TV'S COVERAGE OF ALL CASES -- FROM MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SUITS TO TYPICAL STREET CRIME CASES -- DRAWS SOME OF THE HIGHEST RATINGS ON CABLE TELEVISION, JUST AS THE DISCUSSION GROUPS, AND LAW TUTORIALS, AND EVEN MINI-ARBITRATIONS WE NOW CONDUCT ON THE ONLINE SERVICES ARE AMONG THE MOST POPULAR FEATURES ON THE NEW INFORMATION HIGHWAY.

	SIMILARLY, THERE CAN BE NO DENYING THAT THE CAMERA SHOWS THE PEOPLE INVOLVED AS THEY REALLY ARE. 

	SURE, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK THAT THE CAMERA TURNS QUESTIONABLE PEOPLE INTO STARS. WELL, NOT THE CAMERA IN THE COURTROOM.

	TAKE KATO KAELIN. (PLEASE!) BEFORE HIS TESTIMONY THE MEDIA CIRCUS OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM HAD TURNED HIM INTO SOMEONE WORTH A SIX FIGURE BOOK ADVANCE. MY OWN VIEW IS THAT THE CAMERA IN THE COURT AS HE TESTIFIED SHOWED HIM AS HE REALLY IS; IT MADE HIM LOOK LIKE, WELL..., A PERENNIAL HOUSE GUEST AND OUT OF WORK ACTOR, NOT SOMEONE TO WHOM WE WILL PAY TWENTY THREE NINETY FIVE FOR A BOOK ON HIS THOUGHTS ABOUT THE SIMPSON CASE OR ANYTHING ELSE. 

	APPARENTLY, BOOK PUBLISHERS HAVE AGREED. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IN THE DAYS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING HIS TESTIMONY, HIS BOOK DEAL EVAPORATED.

	IN OTHER WORDS, YOU COULD SAY THAT THE CAMERA HELPED THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS FUNCTION BETTER.  

	SO, AS YOU CAN SEE, I'VE HONED MY ARGUMENTS WELL IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY MY RIGHT TO   EXIST ALONG WITH THE LA TIMES AND THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER. 

	I EVEN HAVE WEAPONS PROVIDED BY OTHERS, SUCH AS A GREAT TIMES MIRROR FOUNDATION STUDY THAT FOUND THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM BETTER, AND IN FACT HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE IN IT, AS A RESULT OF COURT TV.

	BUT, GOD, THOSE NICE ARGUMENTS MAKE ME UNCOMFORTABLE. IT SHOULD MAKE EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM UNCOMFORTABLE WHEN A JOURNALIST HAS TO JUSTIFY HIMSELF TO ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL BY SAYING THAT HIS COVERAGE GIVES MORE PEOPLE CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT, OR THAT HE'S REALLY A GOOD PERSON WITH A SERIOUS, GOOD PURPOSE, WITH SERIOUS GOOD JOURNALISTS LIKE FRED GRAHAM WORKING WITH HIM, AND WITH A HIGH-MINDED GOAL OF TEACHING RATHER THAN EXPLOITING. 

	IMAGINE IF THE NEW YORK OR LOS ANGELES TIMES OR NATIONAL ENQUIRER HAD TO DO THAT IN FRONT OF A JUDGE OR A DIFFERENT GROUP OF LEGISLATORS EVERY MONTH OR TWO? HOW WOULD THE ACLU REACT? 

	IMAGINE GETTING CALLS FROM JUDGES -- WHOM YOU KNOW WILL RULE ONE DAY, MAYBE EVEN THAT DAY, ON AN APPLICATION BY COURT TV TO COVER A CASE -- COMPLAINING ABOUT WHAT SOME COMMENTATOR SAID THE DAY BEFORE. 

	WELL, I'VE GOTTEN THOSE CALLS. AND I TAKE THEM AND TREAT THEM SERIOUSLY, JUST AS I DO WITH OUR MAGAZINE. BUT WITH OUR MAGAZINE, I TREAT A COMPLAINT SERIOUSLY BECAUSE I FEEL ETHICALLY OBLIGATED TO -- SOMETHING I'LL TALK ABOUT IN A MINUTE. WITH COURT TV, I ALSO FEEL ETHICALLY OBLIGATED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS FROM A JUDGE, BUT I FEEL SOMETHING ELSE, TOO. A CHILL.  THE KIND OF CHILL THAT THE ACLU HAS FOUGHT SINCE ITS FOUNDING. THE KIND OF CHILL THAT ONE USUALLY IMAGINES JOURNALISTS FEEL IN OTHER COUNTRIES, BUT NEVER THIS ONE.

	THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT NEWS COVERAGE USING CAMERAS IN THE COURTS -- THE MOST EFFECTIVE, FAR REACHING COVERAGE EVER INVENTED TO INFORM PEOPLE ABOUT OUR MOST IMPORTANT YET LEAST UNDERSTOOD BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT -- PRESENTS THE ONLY ARENA TODAY IN WHICH SPEECH IS CHILLED REGULARLY. 

	BUT WHERE IS THE ACLU ON CAMERAS IN THE COURT? TO BE SURE, THIS REGIONAL ORGANIZATION'S POSITION IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE NATIONAL ACLU (THOUGH HOW DIFFERENT IS UNCLEAR). BUT THE OVERALL NATIONAL ACLU POLICY IS THAT CAMERAS SHOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED IN IF THE DEFENDANTS WANTS THEM. 

	IMAGINE THAT. RICHARD NIXON DECIDING ON CAMERAS AT HIS TRIAL. OR RUPERT MURDOCH NEGOTIATING WITH A SERIAL KILLER FOR COVERAGE. 

	WHEN I STARTED ASKING ACLU PEOPLE ABOUT THIS POLICY A WHILE BACK, NADINE STROSSEN, YOUR PRESIDENT, EXPLAINED TO ME THAT THE ACLU BOARD IS MADE UP OF MANY CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS AND THAT THEY DON'T WANT THEIR CLIENTS ON TELEVISION BECAUSE IT ADDS TO THEIR PUNISHMENT IF THEY ARE CONVICTED.

	IT'S REASONING LIKE THAT THAT WOULD WARM THE HEART OF ED MEESE, THE MAN WHO CALLED YOUR ORGANIZATION A CRIMINALS' LOBBY GROUP. 

	IN FACT, MANY DEFENSE LAWYERS HAVE NOW COME AROUND TO OUR POSITION, BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT A CAMERA IN THE COURT INSURES THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS. AND NONE OF THE STUDIES THAT HAVE PROCEEDED THE INTRODUCTION OF CAMERAS INTO THE 47 STATES THAT NOW ALLOW THEM HAS EVER FOUND THAT DEFENDANTS' RIGHTS WERE IMPERILED. 

	SIMILARLY, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THE SUPREME COURT, IN CHANDLER, RULED THAT CAMERAS DO NOT IN AND OF THEMSELVES DISRUPT A FAIR TRIAL. AND WE ALL KNOW THAT A DEFENDANT ACQUITTED SHOULD, AS WILLIAM KENNEDY SMITH NOW AGREES, RETROACTIVELY AT LEAST WANT A CAMERA TO HAVE BEEN THERE, SO THAT THE PUBLIC KNOWS WHAT THE JURY KNEW WHEN IT FOUND HIM NOT GUILTY.

	BUT I MUST TELL YOU THAT THE DEFENSE LAWYERS' ARGUMENT THAT A CAMERA WILL EMBARRASS A CONVICTED DEFENDANT RINGS TRUE TO ME -- AND RINGS TRUE ENOUGH THAT, WHEN PRESENTED A CHOICE, MOST DEFENSE LAWYERS IN NON-CELEBRATED CASES WILL STILL OPT TO KEEP CAMERAS OUT, WHICH IS WHY STATES WITH CAMERA LAWS ALLOWING DEFENSE VETOES ESSENTIALLY HAVE NO TELEVISED TRIALS.   

	DOES IT SERVE ANY LEGITIMATE PUBLIC POLICY PURPOSE, OR ANY ACLU PURPOSE, TO ALLOW A DEFENDANT THIS ABSOLUTE VETO?  WHY SHOULDN'T A DEFENDANT BE EMBARRASSED BY A CONVICTION?  ISN'T THAT KIND OF EMBARRASSMENT PART OF WHAT THE CRIMINAL PROCESS IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT?

	SO I COME BEFORE YOU TODAY URGING YOU TO PUT THE LIE TO ED MEESE AND OTHERS WHO CLAIM THE ACLU IS A CRIMINAL'S LOBBY.  AS THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS DON'T OWN THE PROCESS; THE RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL ALSO BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC.

	AS THE SUPREME COURT SAID IN THAT CASE: "WITHOUT THE FREEDOM TO ATTEND SUCH TRIALS, WHICH PEOPLE HAVE EXERCISED FOR CENTURIES, IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS WOULD BE EVISCERATED....THE FIRST AMENDMENT CAN BE READ AS PROTECTING THE RIGHT OF EVERYONE TO ATTEND TRIALS."

	OF COURSE, THE LAWYERS IN THE ROOM ARE BY NOW GETTING RESTLESS BECAUSE I'M TOSSING AROUND CONSTITUTIONAL CASES THAT -- SO FAR -- HAVE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CAMERAS, PER SE.

	AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE, TOO (BEFORE I GET TO MY REALLY UNGRACIOUS COMMENTS). 

	AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THE SUPREME COURT HELD IN 1965, IN THE BILLE SOL ESTES CASE, THAT THERE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CAMERA ACCESS. AND MOST LAWYERS CONSIDER THAT TO BE THE LAST WORD ON CAMERAS. BUT ESTES HAD TO DO WITH THE PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OF CAMERA COVERAGE --- THE LIGHTS, THE NOISE OF THE CAMERA, THE CHAOS, THE WIRES. INDEED, THE CIRCUS.

	IN HIS PLURALITY OPINION IN THAT CASE JUSTICE CLARK SAID, "WHEN ADVANCES IN THE [TELEVISION] ARTS PERMIT REPORTING...BY TELEVISION WITHOUT [ITS] PRESENT HAZARDS WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER CASE."

	WELL, I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THAT DAY HAS COME. FOR WE ALL KNOW THAT THE TECHNOLOGY HAS CHANGED. THE PHYSICAL IMPOSITION OF THAT SIMPLE, LONE SILENT CAMERA ON THE WALL IS NO GREATER, ARGUABLY LESS SO, THAN A REPORTER SCRIBBLING ON A PAD. 

	AND IF THE PHYSICAL FACTORS ARE NO LONGER THERE I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS TURN THE OTHER WAY.

	ARE WITNESSES MORE NERVOUS WITH CAMERAS? SOME MIGHT BE, BUT THE STUDIES SHOW THAT MOST ARE NOT ANY MORE NERVOUS THAN THEY OTHERWISE WOULD BE. AND THE OVERWHELMING FACTOR THAT WOULD MAKE A WITNESS NERVOUS HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE THE HIGH PROFILE OF A CASE -- THE HOT PUBLICITY -- WITH OR WITHOUT A CAMERA.

	SO WHAT THAT ARGUMENT BECOMES IS AN ARGUMENT ABOUT WHETHER, AND HOW, INTENSE PUBLICITY AND COMMUNITY INTEREST AFFECT A TRIAL. OF COURSE, IT MIGHT AND PROBABLY DOES, AFFECT A TRIAL, JUST AS IT DID IN THE LAST CENTURY WHEN THE WHOLE COMMUNITY GATHERED IN THOSE HUGE COURTHOUSES WITH CAVERNOUS AUDIENCE GALLERIES TO WATCH THEIR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS ON THE WITNESS STAND, IN THE DOCK AND IN THE JURY BOX. 

	SURE, WITNESSES MIGHT BE MORE NERVOUS IN HIGH PROFILE CASES.  SURE, THE LAWYERS MIGHT BE MORE NERVOUS (AND PROBABLY BETTER PREPARED). SURE, THE JUDGE MIGHT ACT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY, AND MAYBE BETTER.  SURE, SOME PEOPLE MIGHT BE AFRAID TO COME FORWARD AND OTHERS MIGHT BE MORE EAGER TO COME FORWARD.

	BUT THAT HAS TO DO WITH PUBLICITY, NOT CAMERAS. AND THAT ARGUMENT -- ABOUT PUBLICITY -- WAS DECIDED WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN. AND CERTAINLY WHEN RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS WAS DECIDED. SO CAMERAS, IT SEEMS TO ME, CAN'T CONSTITUTIONALLY BE DISTINGUISHED.  

	AND IF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE CAMERA BRINGS MORE PUBLICITY, THEN THAT'S REALLY AN ARGUMENT THAT THE CAMERA DOES A BETTER JOB OF FULFILLING THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE OF A PUBLIC TRIAL -- WHICH, AGAIN, NO MATTER WHAT THE BAD EFFECTS OF PUBLICITY MIGHT BE, CAN'T BE USED AGAINST THE CAMERA, BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION HAS ALREADY DECIDED THAT THOSE BAD EFFECTS ARE OUTWEIGHED BY THE GOOD EFFECTS.

	AS JUDGE STEPHEN REINHARDT OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT RECENTLY PUT IT IN A SPEECH, "WE JUDGES HAVE NO RIGHT TO BAN THE MEDIUM WHICH PROVIDES THE PUBLIC WITH THE VAST MAJORITY OF ITS INFORMATION. WITHOUT DECIDING THE ISSUE, I PREDICT THAT SOME DAY, PERHAPS FAR IN THE FUTURE, THIS QUESTION WILL BE RESOLVED ON FIRST AMENDMENT GROUNDS...." 
 
	THEN THERE'S THE ISSUE OF THE EFFECT OF CAMERAS ON THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION OF THE PROCESS. SUPPOSE THEY DO COME TO SEE IT AS A CARNIVAL? IN FACT, I THINK THAT THE CAMERA INSIDE THE COURTROOM PROJECTS THE DIGNITY OF THE PROCESS -- AS COMPARED TO CAMERAS ON THE COURTHOUSE STEPS SHOWING THE LAWYERS' SPIN SESSIONS OR THE CROWDS OUTSIDE.  BUT SUPPOSE I'M WRONG.  WELL, I GUESS THAT MEANS NO MORE NATIONAL ENQUIRER, NO MORE DOCUDRAMAS, NO MORE TEE SHIRT SALES, NO MORE PICKETING THE COURTHOUSE -- IN ADDITION TO NO MORE CAMERAS.

	YOU GET THE POINT. CAMERAS CAN'T CONSTITUTIONALLY BE BANNED FOR THOSE REASONS ANY MORE THAN THE REST OF THAT STUFF CAN, OR SHOULD. 

	SO, YES, I AGREE WITH JUSTICE CLARKE: NOW THAT THE TECHNICAL IMPEDIMENTS HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED, WE DO NOW HAVE ANOTHER CASE. 

	AND WHEN WE BRING IT, I KNOW THAT REX WILL BE ON OUR SIDE.

	I JUST HOPE THAT THE ACLU WILL, TOO.

	BUT NOW THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT THE FREEDOM THE LAW OUGHT TO GIVE US, I WANT TO TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE, MY SECOND SUBJECT: HOW WE SHOULD USE THAT FREEDOM.

	MANY OF US IN THIS ROOM ARE CONCERNED WITH WHAT SHOULD BE LEGAL AND ILLEGAL. AND WHEN IT COMES TO EXPRESSION, WE BASICALLY DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT STEPPING IN TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL. 

	BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULDN'T BE CONCERNED WITH WHAT'S RIGHT OR WRONG. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT OUR FIGHT IS OVER ONCE WE MAKE SPEECH FREE. FOR WE ALSO, I THINK, ESPECIALLY THOSE OF US IN THE MEDIA, HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO COMBAT IN THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS AND SPEAK OUT FOR SPEECH THAT WE THINK IS RIGHT, AND ARGUE AGAINST WHAT WE THINK IS WRONG OR IRRESPONSIBLE.

	AND I SAY THAT AS SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT THINK THAT IF WE DON'T DO IT, THAT IF WE IN THE MEDIA, BE IT THE PRESS OR HOLLYWOOD OR TV, DON'T REGULATE OURSELVES, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD. I JUST PLAIN DON'T THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BECAUSE I THINK THE CONSEQUENCES TO OUR SOCIETY OF GOVERNMENT DECIDING ON GOOD OR BAD SPEECH ARE ALMOST NEVER WORTH IT.

     RATHER, I SIMPLY THINK THAT WE OWE IT TO OURSELVES AND TO OUR SOCIETY AND TO OUR KIDS TO FIGHT -- WITH MORE SPEECH, NOT WITH LAW -- AGAINST WHAT WE SEE ARE ABUSES OF THAT FREEDOM. AND I THINK THE PEOPLE AT THE TOP OF MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS HAVE A SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THAT AREA TO SET REAL STANDARDS.

	SO NOW, A WORD ABOUT US JOURNALISTS.
WE GENERALLY DO A LOUSY JOB OF LIVING UP TO THE WORK THE ACLU AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS HAVE DONE FOR US.

	WE LOVE TO HOLD OTHERS ACCOUNTABLE, BUT WE RARELY HOLD OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE. AND IT'S TIME THAT WE CHANGE THAT. 

	FOR YEARS NOW I HAVE BEEN ARGUING FOR THAT KIND OF ACCOUNTABILITY. RECENTLY I SKETCHED OUT A PROPOSAL ALONG THOSE LINES AND I WANT TO TRY TO SELL IT TO YOU BEFORE I SIT DOWN: 

	THOSE OF US WHO CLAIM TO BE RUNNING JOURNALISM ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD FORM A PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY THAT HAS A PRIVATE SECTOR, DISCIPLINARY CODE REQUIRING AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT: 

	1. WE MAKE CLEAR CANDID CORRECTIONS AND  WE CORRECT MISTAKES AS PROMINENTLY AS WE MAKE THEM -- ON PAGE ONE OR AT THE TOP OF THE EVENING NEWS IF NECESSARY. 

	2. WE SHOULD ACTIVELY SOLICIT CORRECTIONS. A WHILE BACK WHEN I WAS WRITING AN ARTICLE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT, I ASKED THE MAJOR NETWORKS ABOUT THEIR CORRECTIONS PROCEDURES AND FOUND THAT NEITHER NBC, CBS OR CNN HAD MADE A SINGLE ON-AIR CORRECTION IN THE PRIOR YEAR AND THAT ABC HAD MADE THREE. DOES ANYONE THINK THAT'S HOW MANY MISTAKES THEY COLLECTIVELY MADE? (I SHOULD ADD, I GUESS, THAT AT COURT TV, WE HAVE AN ON-AIR ANNOUNCEMENT SOLICITING CORRECTIONS RUNNING AT LEAST TWICE A DAY.)

	3. WE SHOULD NAME NAMES WHEN WE MAKE CORRECTIONS. IF JOURNALISTS CAN GET BYLINES AND CREDITS, THEN THEY OUGHT TO BE WILLING TO TAKE THE HEAT AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR MISTAKES. 

	4. WE SHOULD NAME THE CEO OF THE ORGANIZATION PROMINENTLY IN THE PAPER OR AT THE END OF THE TV SHOW SO THAT HE OR SHE CAN BE CONTACTED BY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO COMPLAIN.

	THERE ARE A LOT MORE BELLS AND WHISTLES HAVING TO DO WITH DISCLOSING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND THE LIKE, BUT THAT'S THE IDEA IN A NUTSHELL -- THAT JOURNALISTS BEGIN TO HOLD THEMSELVES PUBLICLY TO THE SAME STANDARDS THAT THEY LOVE HOLDING OTHER PEOPLE TO.  AND, I SHOULD ADD, THAT THOSE WHO DO SO -- WHO DO ABIDE BY THESE STANDARDS -- THEN BE ABLE TO HOLD THEMSELVES OUT TO READERS AND VIEWERS, AND TO ADVERTISERS WORRIED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THEY ADVERTISE, THAT THEY ARE  MEMBERS OF A PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS' ORGANIZATION WITH TRULY PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS. 

	INDEED, ALL OF US IN THE MEDIA, NOT JUST JOURNALISTS,  OWE IT TO THOSE WHO FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM TO REACH FOR A HIGHER STANDARD THAN WE NOW SETTLE FOR. 

	IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THOSE OF US ON EITHER COAST TO SAY THAT ANY SUCH VALUE JUDGMENTS ARE CENSORSHIP. FOR WHEN THOSE JUDGMENTS ARE ASSERTED BY PRIVATE PEOPLE AND BY PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS, THEY ARE NOT CENSORSHIP; THEY ARE THE EDITORIAL DECISIONS AND EXPRESSIONS OF TASTE AND VALUES THAT ARE THE RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZENS' AND, I THINK, THE OBLIGATION OF EVERY RESPONSIBLE PERSON IN THE MEDIA.

	SO, NOW, HERE COMES THE AWKWARD PART OF MY TALK. 

	OUR HOST TODAY AND THIS ORGANIZATION'S CHAIRMAN IS A TERRIFIC PERSON AND HAS DONE A TERRIFIC JOB NOT ONLY FOR THE ACLU BUT FOR HIS NETWORK, THE E ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK. BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT LEE MASTERS WOULD WANT TO THINK TWICE THE NEXT TIME BEFORE HE ALLOWS SOMETHING CALLING ITSELF THE ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK TO TELEVISE GAVEL TO GAVEL A DOUBLE MURDER TRIAL. 

	WHILE I WOULD JOIN YOU IN COURT TO FIGHT FOR E'S RIGHT TO SHARE IN THE COURT TV CAMERA FEED FROM THE OJ SIMPSON TRIAL, I SURE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A DRINK WITH LEE ONE NIGHT AND ASK HIM WHY IT DOESN'T FURTHER COARSEN SOCIETY AND CHEAPEN TRAGIC EVENTS WHEN A CHANNEL THAT CALLS ITSELF THE ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK CARRIES A DOUBLE MURDER TRIAL GAVEL TO GAVEL, ANCHORED BY A DIET FOOD PITCH WOMAN, AND COMPLETE WITH GOSSIP REPORTS AND COMMENTARY FROM HAIR STYLISTS AND A DOG PSYCHOLOGIST. 	

	IT'S NOT ILLEGAL, AND SHOULDN'T BE. IT'S JUST WRONG.

	LOOKING AT THE PROBLEM MORE BROADLY,  AS JEFF GREENFIELD OF ABC SAID IN A SPEECH LAST MONTH, "IF A SOBER RESPONSIBLE NETWORK NEWSCAST ENDS AT 6:58 AND THE LATEST SLAM BANG TABLOID PROGRAM BEGINS TWO MINUTES LATER ON THE SAME NETWORK-OWNED AND OPERATED STATION, THEN HOW MUCH STANDING DO WE REALLY HAVE TO PROCLAIM THAT WE ARE NOT PART OF THAT WORLD?" 

	JEFF WENT ON TO SAY, REFERRING TO FREAK OF THE DAY TALK SHOWS, "THE QUESTION, OF COURSE, ISN'T WHETHER THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR PEOPLE TO PRODUCE AND PARTICIPATE IN SUCH PROGRAMS. THE QUESTION IS --- WHAT ARE YOU DOING PRODUCING SUCH PROGRAMS, OR AIRING THEM, OR SPONSORING THEM?"

	"WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHT," HE CONTINUED, "TO DRAW THE APPROPRIATE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT YOUR SENSE OF TASTE, RESTRAINT, AND COMMON ORDINARY DECENCY" AND ABOUT "THE SINCERITY OF YOUR CLAIM TO BE SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST...?"

	SURELY, WE SHOULD ALL STRIVE TO HOLD OURSELVES TO A HIGHER PERSONAL STANDARD. SURELY, WE SHOULD ALL STRIVE TO BE MORE ACCOUNTABLE.

	IMAGINE, BY THE WAY, IF THE CEOs OF THE HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS AND THEIR PARENT COMPANIES  HAD THEIR NAMES UP ON THE SCREEN AFTER EVERY ONE OF THOSE VIOLENT OR EXPLOITATIVE SHOWS THAT JEFF WAS TALKING ABOUT? OR IF THE CEOs OF THE PARENT COMPANIES WERE NAMED EVERY MORNING AFTER THEIR TELEVISION STATIONS' AIRING OF THESE SHOWS? 

	NOT NAMED SO THEY'D BE NAILED BY THE FCC OR HAULED INTO A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING. BUT SO THAT THEY'D HAVE TO EXPLAIN THEMSELVES AT DINNER PARTIES OR AT TUCK IN TIME TO THEIR CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN. 

	BUT LET ME BE REAL CLEAR HERE. I AM NOT STANDING HERE DECLARING, OR DECLAIMING, THAT THESE ARE BAD PEOPLE, OR EVEN HYPOCRITES. IT'S JUST THAT TO SOME EXTENT WE ARE ALL VICTIMS OF A STATE OF MIND THAT SAYS THAT BECAUSE WE IN AMERICA HAVE SUCH UNIQUE AND WONDERFUL FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, WE OUGHT TO CELEBRATE IT BUT NEVER THINK MUCH ABOUT WHEN AND HOW TO USE IT. 

	OR, TO PUT IT DIFFERENTLY, BECAUSE WE ARE SUCH A LAW ORIENTED SOCIETY, WE TEND TO THINK THAT IF THE LAW DOESN'T HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE FOR SOMETHING THEN THAT IS THE END OF OUR ACCOUNTABILITY. 

	YOU SEE, I BELIEVE DEEPLY IN ACCOUNTABILITY WHEN IT COMES TO SPEECH. BUT ACCOUNTABILITY NOT TO THE GOVERNMENT BUT TO OUR OWN CONSCIENCES AND TO THE EFFECT THAT OTHER PEOPLES' SPEECH AND EXPRESSION  MIGHT HAVE ON OUR SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG. 

	FOR OUR OWN CONSCIENCES AND SENSE OF STANDARDS CAN AND SHOULD BE PRODDED BY OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS AND OTHER PEOPLE'S REACTIONS TO HOW WE USE THIS PRECIOUS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. INDEED, IN CRITICIZING A GOOD PERSON LIKE LEE AT HIS OWN LUNCH, BEFORE A GREAT GROUP THAT HE DOES GREAT WORK FOR, I HOPE I'VE DONE MY OWN BIT OF PERFORMANCE ART HERE TO ILLUSTRATE THAT POINT.

	SO, LET ME CLOSE BY SAYING THAT I'M HERE TO THANK THE ACLU AND PEOPLE LIKE REX HEINKE FOR GIVING US THAT FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE, THOUGH I WISH THE ORGANIZATION WOULD, LIKE REX, SEE THE LIGHT AND APPLY THE SAME STANDARD TO THE TYPE OF TELEVISION NEWS I SEEK TO PUBLISH -- CAMERA COVERAGE OF TRIALS. 	

	BUT WHILE I'M HERE TO THANK YOU AND CHIDE YOU, I'M ALSO HERE TO URGE, TOO, THAT THOSE OF US IN THE MEDIA HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO OUR SOCIETY, TO OUR FAMILIES, AND TO OUR OWN SENSE OF PRIDE AND PROFESSIONALISM TO HOLD OURSELVES MORE ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW WE USE THE FREEDOM YOU HAVE FOUGHT TO GIVE US. 

	THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.