Open Letter to the Hip-Hop Community: What do you think of the #NewRules to Voting Rights?

This is a editorial that was written by Marvin Bing the Northwest Regional Director of the NAACP in response to the Voting Rights Act. He asked me to pass it on.-Jasiri X-

Open Letter to the Hip-Hop Community: What do you think of the #NewRules to Voting Rights?

vote-rights500The Voting Rights Act, first signed into law in 1965, was a keystone victory of the civil rights movement. African-American citizens withstood beatings, fire hoses and dogs to see the law passed. Some even gave their lives.

And for decades since, the law has protected the right to vote for millions of America’s citizens — regardless of faith, color or creed.

Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court strikes down the power to enforce this important law. This is more than a disappointment—it’s an injustice.

The Hip-Hop community has an obligation to respond to this. Hip-hop was born out of the struggle against inequality, poverty, violence and discrimination. It is a genre that reflects those inequalities in order to overcome them and change them.

Millions of young people listen and act based off what artists, DJs, bloggers and On-Air personalities say. You have the power to help them retain their rights to vote and to fight for the millions of people who will lose the right to vote.

Last year, right-wing law-makers made a dramatic effort to limit voting access. They tried passing restrictive voter ID laws, cutting back early-voting hours, and eliminating same-day voter registration. Citizens with every right to vote were turned away from the polls after waiting hours in line to vote.

The Voting Rights Act was invoked to stop these attacks on the right of the people to vote in 2012. Without it, everything would be different today.

Our nation should be expanding voting access, not restricting it. The decision handed down by the Supreme Court today means that it is now up to us, the people, the hip-hop community, to protect our right to vote.

Tell your audience you’re pissed off about this decision. Talk about how important voting is and how the threat of voter discrimination is very real. Send email blasts, make a PSA, light up social media, and make on-air announcements.

You can start by getting people to Washington, DC for the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. In 1965, Dr. King and civil rights leaders led 300,000 to March on Washington, and this historic event is part of the reason the Voting Rights Acts passed 50 years ago. On Saturday, August 24, 2013, the NAACP and other civil rights groups can recreate the momentum with your help.

And we need more than marches. We need to be in our communities educating, registering, engaging, and building our people up with the tools and knowledge they need.

Where’s your hustle, are you up for the challenge? The time is always right to do what’s right. Our young people look to you for leadership beyond lyrics.

Marvin Bing is the Northeast Regional Director of the National NAACP. You can follow him on twitter and Instagram @MarvinBing

 

Folks Best Pay Close Attention to these Other Cases the SCOTUS Is Ruling On…

The Supreme Court decided the fate of over 30 million people today

The Supreme Court will decide the fate over millions

***Update*** The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of corporations..5-4.. You won’t be able to sue over racial and sexual harassment..

Today the Supreme Court will likely hand down a decision to determine the fate of gay marriage.. Later this week they will also hand down decisions on affirmative action.. Both are important cases and will keep everyone talking… There are a few other cases we should be aware of that will have even more far-reaching impact..

The first case was already ruled on, last week where the SCOTUS made it very difficult to bring a class action lawsuit.. The case they ruled on involved small merchants banning together to stop the tyranny imposed upon them by credit card companies. In this case it was American Express. If there’s an issue each small merchant must handle it through arbitration…There is no way to deal with a problem that may be systemic..This is important and I hope folks take heed, because this sets precedent for what has been an effective weapon to push back on corporate over reach..

The other case they will decide upon will make it harder for employees to sue on the basis of racial and sexual harassment.. What the US Chamber of commerce and others are pushing for is for a redefinition of what it means to be a ‘supervisor’… They want it to specifically to mean someone who can hire and fire.. So if you are on a job and have a co-worker who is ‘supervising’ you and causing you grief, it will be hard to bring a lawsuit for a ‘hostile’ work environment.. Workplaces are already difficult to deal with, this will now make it shear hell. An article in today’s Think Progress breaks it down like this:

The law provides very robust protections to employees who are harassed by their supervisors, but it is drastically more difficult for an employee to win a racial or sexual harassment lawsuit if they have only been harassed by coworkers. In the later case the worker must show that their employer has “been negligent either in discovering or remedying the harassment.” For this reason, it matters a great deal who qualifies as a “supervisor” for purposes of sexual harassment law. If the word is defined too narrowly, it could encompass employees who have the power to intimidate their victims into keeping their harassment secret.

You can read the entire article HERE: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/24/2200681/the-scariest-pending-supreme-court-case-that-youve-probably-never-heard-of/

I hope folks stay abreast of such rulings and understand that its rulings like these that favor corporations that will impact us for decades to come.. We already see the impact in places where we have work at will rules and in other places where union organizing is damn near outlawed..

-Davey D-

Music Industry Execs Want NightClub & Hip Hop DJs to Pay Royalties for Songs-Case Before Appeals Court

Last week the eyes and ears of the country were focused on the Supreme Court as they started oral arguments around the constitutionality of key aspects of the Affordable Healthcare Act. Outside the Supreme Court things were contentious as advocates squared off with Tea Party types who opposed having HCR to be a requirement.Many said this case would be one for the history books…a landmark case for the ages.

Not too far from the Supreme Court sits the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. There another case of historic proportions is underway. The large crowds and onslaught of media trucks weren’t present, yet what comes of this Court of Appeals could have an immediate and long lasting impact for anyone who listens or plays music in today’s digital world. In these hallowed halls justices are debating copyright and who pays for what when it comes to music. The proceedings are entering it’s 4th week.

What’s at stake is whether or not the 3 appointed administrative judges who make up the US Copyright Royalty Board are constitutional. For those who don’t know, this 3 judge body which  consists of James Scott Sledge (Chief Copyright Royalty Judge), Stanley Wisniewski, and William J. Roberts are the ones who soley determine royalty rates and set terms for copyright statutory licenses. many have suggested these 3 individuals who are appointed by the Librarian of Congress are too powerful and need to have additional oversight.

For a long time very little attention was paid to this office, but in recent years the CRB has determined royalty rates for Internet radio, Satellite radio like Sirius XM, cable TV, cell phones, ring tones and anything else where music is broadcasted or transmitted digitally.  Many feel that over the years the rulings from CRB have been a Godsend for corporate copyright owners, major record labels, publishing houses who been able to collect enormous sums of money from digital music users.

The most recent rates set by the CRB, which will stay in effect to 2015, require commercial internet stations to pay upwards to $50,000 per station annually and .25 cent per song/ per listener. Many webcasters, including the world’s largest, Pandora as well as many others who own digital media businesses, have long complained thatCRB royalty rates were too high and crippling business.  On the other side, music industry tycoons have been clamoring to charge more. They said anyone using music in digital form hasn’t paid enough and needs to ante up  and help fill their coffers.  It’s a vicious tug of war that has led to CRB’s constitutionally being challenged.

It’ll be at least a year before the final arguments are heard in before the Appeals Court, in the meantime industry executives have been rushing to put ironclad laws in place, so in the event CRB is dismantled the rulings they enacted stay in place.

Industry tycoons wanna start charging DJs to play their songs

Industry tycoons are now turning their sights to Club and Mobile DJs and want to start charging them for the commercial and non commercial use of their songs. This added fee would be on top of what night clubs and restaurants already pay to organizations like ASCAP and BMI. They’ve been emboldened by a recent 9th Circuit court ruling where deejays were found to be in breach of copyright for playing music at Roscoe Chicken and Waffles in Los Angeles.. You can read that case HERE

Industry big wigs are anxious to get a ruling on DJs just as American Idol executive Simon Cowell is set to launch a DJ Talent Show.. You can read about that HERE Many feel that the DJ talent show will move millions away from playing instruments and into the DJ realm which now thanks to digital tools  and mp3s make it easy for anyone to get involved in the profession. many are seeing the potential for huge dollar signs..Others see dollar signs but have a specific beef..

If Ernie Le Saviour has his the way music is presented will be forever changed

Ernie Le Saviour  a veteran musician, film maker and now music executive has been leading the charge.In a recent interview he said; “DJs have been illegally profiting off the hard work us musicians put in. They make thousands of dollars a night and we don’t see one red cent.”

Saviour continued, “What really chaps my hide, is these DJs have been illegally rearranging (mixing) and  ruining the composition of songs. A lot of hard work was put into making a song. As a professional flautist, one needs to understand that hours were spent perfecting the final product. We didn’t put our heart and soul into a song only to have some lazy, non-musicially inclined disc jockey to go tinkering and MIS-arranging our stuff”.

Saviour who is a flute player, can be heard playing in the back of classic songs like Flashlight by Parliament, Getaway by Earth Wind & Fire and most notably Paid in Full by Eric B & Rakim. He is scheduled to testify next week before the Court of Appeals. There he will plans to express his outrage at nightclub deejays..

Savior explains; Late last year, My son dragged me went to some fancy nightclub in Vegas where I had to pay 50 dollars to go see some bib Black guy with a 1960s style Afro and an Afro pick in his head spin records. My son was all excited and told me it Questluv. I thought it was strange, because this guy Questluv is a musician.. I see him every night on one the Jimmy Fallon show where plays drums..”

“Seeing him on the turntables troubled me. I kept asking myself; ‘Why would a professional drummer be deejaying? In my world that’s going backwards.  As a professional flautist, I would never stoop down and deejay.  It takes skillz to blow..it requires very little to spin”, said Saviour

DJs like Questluv have angered Ernie Le Saviour

He continued; “Anyway as the night goes on, we’re getting ready to leave when suddenly I hear this song ‘Paid in Full’. This is the song where I play both the transverse flute and the western style, Db piccolo better known as a soprano flute.  I’m excited and thinking this large crowd will get to hear a master musician. Then boom disappointment.. First problem This DJ Mr Questluv, sped the song up, so when you hear me playing my flute its in an F key when the original was done in a C…That was unacceptable”

Savior goes on; “Next problem is this Quest guy cuts off the flute mid stream, right before my crescendo. He repeats this over and over again.(Quest was back spinning)”

“I told my son, ‘That is not how the song was made’ . It made me look incompetent. As a professional a flautist I was embarrassed. Who gave this deejay permission to change the arrangement in my song.. in front of hundreds of people nevertheless.? I said to my son there ought to be law against this and I wanna be compensated”

Congressman John Conyers

Saviour expressed his outrage to fellow music executives. He called Congressman John Conyers who has doing lots of work to help musicians get paid through a performance royalty tax under HR 848. Conyers wants radio stations to pay for each song they air and may soon get his way.. Saviour who attended two briefings put on by Conyers, concluded: “If radio can pay, why can’t these damn deejays?”

The way current copyright laws are written now, Ernie Le Saviour is not entitled to any compensation accept what is determined by ASCAP or BMI.. If he has his way sections 114 and 115 of current copyright law will be re-written to add provisions that will apply to deejays and remixers.

Saviour says anyone who presents music in a digital form on popular platforms like Serato, Torque or any other digital music device, either as  deejay or any other presenter, should be required to obtain a compulsory license before rearranging a song in public. In other words you will not be allowed to, mix, remix or alter the song in anyway without the permission of the artist and copyright holders.  Saviour contends that the public has a right and reasonable expectation to hear the music as it was originally intended.

“Can you imagine if I ran up on stage and started playing the drums any old way and said it was a Questluv composition? It would be foul.. So I ask that people not mess with the arrangement of my flute. As a professional flautist I have standards and they can’t be respected, then we’ll have to legislate it.”

Saviour also wants deejays to pay similar rates like Internet Radio, 25 cent per song..he noted that with the new technology, digital devices can be checked remotely, so as soon as a deejay puts on a record, it will leave digital footprint allowing Saviour and other executives to collect royalties.. Thus far Saviour’s proposal is being well received and may get some favor before the Appeals Court.

Ernie Le Saviour will be address the Appeals Court of District of Columbia this Wednesday at 2pm EST.. If you would like to weigh in or get more info on how to support or oppose.. You can reach out HERE

written by Davey D

Racism in Hip Hop: Can You use Racial Slurs in a Battle?

Watching these videos of emcees battling where the racial daggers come out..In this first vid we see the white rapper (Casper) call a Black kid (actually mixed) a ‘nigger’.. Later he talks about lynching him.. Is that taking it too far or is that fair game in a battle..

In the second video we see a Persian rapper named Dizaster go off on his opponent A-Class with the Asian disses. It’s a bit over the top. is this latent racism or good battle strategy.. Can a we start making holocaust jokes in a battle? or do like the deejays did on Hot 97 a few years back and make fun of Southeast Asians drowning after a tsunami?  Can we do like Cipher Sounds and make fun of Haitian women claiming they have Aids? Where do we draw the line in Hip Hop? Are these battles an excuse to unleash racist attitudes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRKHNQpL2f4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq9ZLV-0g9s

Looks Like Dr Dre is on Trial

Looks like Dr Dre is on trial in #MI Supreme Ct for ‘illegally’ videotaping a police officer~this is not cool http://on-msn.com/huzH2t

Police are public officials but they been pushing to make it so you video taping them while they are doing their duty is a privacy violation…The Dr Dre case has been in the works since 2000, but now its on the steps of Michigan Supreme Ct. Sadly it could set a precedent for other cases involving citizens taping the police…

The bottom line is most police unions do not want the bad behavior of their members to be displayed on Youtube, DVDs & other outlets.. The don’t want to erode public trust and confidence. As long as their doing dirt in so-called crime ridden communities which they depict as exclusively Black and Brown, the law and order types who dominate our airwaves give them a wink and a nod to abuses.. To avoid having to answer to egregious cases many police outlets have successfully gotten laws passed in several states making it illegal to videotape them.

Meanwhile, far too many of us are more concerned about drama at the Golden Globes, or what went down on the latest episode of Real Housewives of Atlanta, then we are about these encroachments on our civil liberties. ..

The real beef is not Lil Kim vs Foxy Brown vs whoever.. The real beef is with those who oppress us. Turn your attention to Dr Dre vs the police in today’s Mi Supreme ct hearings.. That’s the battle ground. Thats where the real beef is at.

two years ago in Oakland, Ca the police chased down an ABC camara man & threatned to beat his ass for taping them.. The man had been working almost 30 yrs-but said he felt scared after the police came at him for filming them standing in front of a hospital after 4 officers had been killed. He wound up quitting and suing OPD..

Below is a frightening video of his encounter..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufHI4YRm6OU&feature=player_embedded

There’s another journalist in Oakland named JR Valry who was out taking pictures during the first Oscar Grant demonstrations. He’s long been outspoken about the police and wound up being tackled and falsely accused of setting garbage can on fire. His case was acquitted but the police kept his 1500 dollar camara.

I think we’re so overwhelemed with police abuse that we’ve simply given up when we hear them complaining about being videotaped. The only way things are reversed is if we keep up our awareness..

Pay close attention to the Dr Dre case.

In other related news, folks may want to also pay attention to the type of training police are recieving, which would lead one to want to carry a camera.

In NYC, police were made to watch a training video that smears American Muslims called The Third Jihad. Here’s what was written in about the film in the Village Voice

It is 72 minutes of gruesome footage of bombing carnage, frenzied crowds, burning American flags, flaming churches, and seething mullahs. All of this is sandwiched between a collection of somber talking heads informing us that, while we were sleeping, the international Islamist Jihad that wrought these horrors has set up shop here and is quietly going about its deadly business. This is the final drive in a 1,400-year-old bid for Muslim world domination, we’re informed. And while we may think there are some perfectly reasonable Muslim leaders and organizations here in the U.S., that is just more sucker bait sent our way.

Such activities are the first step in dehumanizing an entire group of people which in turn leads to a sordid justification of them being abused.. Again pay attention to all this..

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Don’t Get Too Smug About Christine O’Donnell’s Flub-How Many of Y’all Can Cite Supreme Court Decisions?

There’s an old saying ‘Don’t get too smug that you wind up being the smartest person in the room-In the end that won’t win you very many friends‘. In other words be wary of trying to make others feel or seem stupid.  Be humble. Walk and talk WITH people. Don’t preach or talk AT them.

Thats a word of caution to those of us on the left leaning side of the room. Acting smug leads to us underestimating and alienating folks

It was hard not to think these thoughts when watching the Christine O’Donnell vs Chris Coons US Senate debate in Delaware that aired on CNN last night. Here O’Donnell was asked what recent Supreme Court decision has she disagreed with and she was stumped. O’Donnell couldn’t name one.

Now, a lot of my colleagues who are in the media or part of the pundit’s brigade took glee in her misstep. Many were quick to tweet about ‘how dumb she was’ and compared her to Sarah Palin who was similarly stumped when she was running for Vice President.Many are quick to say since she’s running for office she should know. ideally yes, I agree, but many look to see themselves in the folks they elect.

We saw this with George Bush and his ‘aaaw shucks lets have a beer’ mannerisms. Many accused an un-infiormed public of voting for President Obama without fully knowing what he was about other then skin color and our collective reaction to racial attacks directed at him.

If we believe what has been reported in the past we certainly know that many of the bills passed are not fully read by those in office. I caution folks who took glee in O’Donnell’s flub to slow down and not get too full of themselves. Her not knowing is not to far removed from the reality of the average ordinary person who works 9-5 and likes to think they stay fairly abreast of current events. Many folks look to see themselves in politicians and while O’Donnell is likely to lose in Delaware, what about other places?

Tea Party Candidate Sharon Angle is leading Harry Reid in spite saying a lot of 'dumb' things-Where are all the smart people?

We’re gleefully calling people dumb but may wind up losing all sorts of seats to ‘dumb’ Tea Party types. How is that happening if we’re so damn smart? Why is Harry Reid trailing in polls to one of those ‘dumb’ tea party types-Sharon Angle? Where’s all the smart people in the room ?I’ll await your answer.

To those who wanna sit back and smirk, I caution and challenge you to ask your neighbor or family member the same question. Heck ask yourself. What recent Supreme Court decisions over the past couple of years do you disagree with? Cite 3  without looking them up. I’ll wait.

Most folks are likely to cite the Supreme Court decision that came down earlier this year that allows corporations the right to pump unlimited funds into campaign ads. However, most including myself are likely to have to google to get the exact name and even then we better have some inkling because simply typing in ‘Supreme Court decisions’ wont get you very far.

Quick, is it People vs Citizens United? or the FEC vs Citizens United? Does anyone know who or what is Citizens United without looking it up?

Thank God for wikipedia. I’d venture to say that very few of us and that includes many folks in the media knew that Citizens United was a conservative non profit. Even fewer knew who Citizen United intended to attack, but was prohibited, which in turn prompted the lawsuit and the eventual  Supreme Court’s landmark decision.

For those who don’t know, it was Hillary Clinton. You can brush up on the case here.. FEC vs Citizens United.

There are many who are in media or political junkies who are up on such things or at the very least have enough info on hand that they can start a reasonable search. A lot of folks simply would not know where to begin, even with the internet at their finger tips. For example, type in the term Supreme Court decision and see what you get.. If it’s on Google you get the following sites:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx

 

Christine O'Donnell not knowing the most recent Supreme Court decisions is not too far removed from the reality of most people

 

Try reading your way through those pages and come up with reasonable conclusions.  The average Joe or Jane is probably gonna call it a wrap and move on. Maybe our esteemed media outlets should spend less time telling me about Lindsey Lohan going to jail or Courtney Cox breaking up and more about important decisions made by the nine justices on the Supreme Court.

Again only the smug, smartest kid in the room is gonna clown O’Donnell for not knowing Supreme Court decisions. Everyone else is going to see themselves in her especially after she noted she didn’t know.

In addition I think most folks watching probably appreciated the fact that she noted how Roe vs Wade wouldn’t make abortions illegal, but would leave it up to states to decide. A lot of folks did not know that.

Here’s a brief breakdown

NANCY KARIBJANIAN: What opinions, of late, that have come from our high court, do you most object to?

O’DONNELL: Oh, gosh. Um, give me a specific one. I’m sorry.

KARIBJANIAN: Actually, I can’t, because I need you to tell me which ones you object to.

O’DONNELL: Um, I’m very sorry, right off the top of my head, I know that there are a lot, but I’ll put it up on my website, I promise you.

WOLF BLITZER: We know that you disagree with Roe v. Wade.

O’DONNELL: Yeah, but she said a recent one.

BLITZER: That’s relatively recent.

O’DONNELL: She said “of late.” But yeah. Well, Roe v. Wade would not put the power — It’s not recent, it’s 30-something years old —

BLITZER: But since then, have there been any other Supreme Court decisions?

O’DONNELL: Well, let me say about Roe v. Wade — If that were overturned, would not make abortion illegal in the United States, it would put the power back to the states.

BLITZER: But besides that decision, anything else you disagree with?

O’DONNELL: Oh, there are several when it comes to pornography, when it comes to court decisions — not to Supreme Court, but federal court decisions to give terroristsMirandize rights. There are a lot of things I believe — This California decision to overturn Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I believe there are a lot of federal judges legislating from the bench.

BLITZER: That wasn’t the Supreme Court. That was a lower —

You can peep the exchange below

O’DONNELL: That was a federal judge. That’s what I said. In California.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQZbxm7ntf4

Now will last night’s stumble hurt Christine O’Donnell?  Probably not. She was already hurt because of her infamous witchcraft remarks which were made known to us via HBO TV host Bill Maher who pulled out the 10 year old clips.

To the degree that’s made her the butt of jokes and has wiped away her shine and momentum is very different then her not knowing the most recent Supreme Court decisions. Trust me I was one of those folks that had a field day because of her remarks.

But I gotta be honest, I was riding that pony with the hopes it would gain traction and slow her roll. I don’t want Ms O’Donnell in the US senate. I disagree with her political Tea party inspired views. The witchcraft flub is fair game. She can explain it away as being youthful indiscretion the same way President Barack Obama explained away his use of cocaine or the way former President Bill Clinton explained away his marijuana puff or lack of a puff.  (He said he didn’t inhale-yeah right Bill)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iWRw3oZdg4

 

We all know Christine O'Donnell, but who is Chris Coons? What do we know about him?

 

Lastly I cant say what’s what in Delaware but most folks outside its borders know Christine O’Donnell but most would be hard pressed to name her opponent Chris Coons without looking him up. Most of us would do so by googling her name and then reading whatever article popped up in hopes of seeing his name. While I can see folks not wanting O’Donnell in the senate what about her opponent? What’s he about? What’s his stance on issues? Is he progressive or another Ben Nelson/ Joe Liberman type?  Has he excited voters so that we wanna vote for him or are folks riled up and wanna vote against O’Donnell?  I’ll await your answers…

Something to Ponder

-Davey D-

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Supreme Court Decision to Keep Same-Sex Marriage in the Dark is Troubling

The ruling by the Supreme Court to disallow cameras in the courtroom raises deeper concerns then the this historic trial not being shown. What concerns me is the stark partisan nature of the ruling and if that is reflective of the conservative strategy to oppose everything that they feel can be favorable to the opposition party or President Obama… I feel that this may be the start of a tactic in which conservative forces fight to get everything incourt, work it up the line to the Supreme Court and come out victorious… maybe I’m wrong, but its something worth noting..

-Davey D- 

Keeping Same-Sex Marriage in the Dark

Friday 15 January 2010

by: Marjorie Cohn  |   Jurist

On Wednesday, a conservative majority of the Supreme Court overturned a ruling made by a federal trial judge that would have allowed limited television coverage of a trial that will decide the fate of California’s Proposition 8. The trial, which is currently proceeding in San Francisco, is one of the most significant civil rights cases of our time. The plaintiffs are seeking to overturn a ballot initiative that makes same-sex marriage illegal in California.

It was unusual that the Supreme Court even decided to hear this case. The high court takes very few cases. It generally decides issues about which the state or federal courts are in conflict or cases that raise important questions of federal law. Yet relying on the Supreme Court’s “supervisory power” over the lower courts, the five conservative justices – Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy – joined in an unsigned 17-page decision and chided Chief Judge Vaughn Walker for seeking to broadcast the trial without a sufficient notice period for public comment.

Justice Breyer wrote in the dissent joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor that he could find no other case in which the Supreme Court had intervened in the procedural aspects of local judicial administration. Indeed, Breyer cited a case in which Scalia wrote, “I do not see the basis for any direct authority to supervise lower courts.”

Moreover, in the comment period that Walker did allow, he received 138,574 comments, and all but 32 favored transmitting the proceedings.

The majority concluded that the same-sex marriage opponents would suffer “irreparable harm” if the trial were broadcast to five other federal courts around the country. But all the witnesses who allegedly might be intimidated by the camera were experts or Prop 8 advocates who had already appeared on television or the Internet during the campaign.

No one presented empirical data to establish that the mere presence of cameras would negatively impact the judicial process, Breyer wrote. He cited a book that I authored with veteran broadcast journalist David Dow, Cameras in the Courtroom: Television and the Pursuit of Justice. It describes studies that found no harm from the camera, and one which found that witnesses “who faced an obvious camera, provided answers that were more correct, lengthier and more detailed.”

The five justices who denied camera coverage noted at the outset that they would not express “any view on whether [federal] trials should be broadcast.” Toward the end of their decision, however, they stated that since the trial judge intended to broadcast witness testimony, “[t]his case is therefore not a good one for a pilot program.”

In my opinion, it is no accident that the five majority justices are the conservatives who, in all likelihood, oppose same-sex marriage. Why don’t those who oppose same-sex marriage want people to see this trial?

Perhaps they are mindful of the sympathy engendered by televised images of another civil rights struggle. “It was hard for people watching at home not to take sides,” David Halberstam wrote about Little Rock in The Fifties. “There they were, sitting in their living rooms in front of their own television sets watching orderly black children behaving with great dignity, trying to obtain nothing more than a decent education, the most elemental of American birthrights, yet being assaulted by a vicious mob of poor whites.”

The conservative justices may think that televising this trial will have the same effect on the public. Witnesses are describing their love for each other in deeply emotional terms. Religious fundamentalists who oppose them will testify about their interpretation of scripture. Gay marriage is one of the hot button issues of our time. Passions run high on both sides. This is not a jury trial in which jurors might be affected by the camera or a criminal case where the life or liberty of the defendant is at stake.

In spite of what the conservative majority claims, the professional witnesses are not likely to be cowed by the camera. Modern broadcast technology would allow the telecast without affecting the proceedings in the courtroom.

There is overwhelming public interest in this case. It will affect the daily lives of millions of people. The decision denying limited broadcast coverage at this point effectively eliminates any possibility that it will be allowed before the trial is over. The conservative judges are using procedural excuses to push this critical issue back into the closet.

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner