OPINION

The Compelling Case for Cameras

The notion that spectators have to camp out or spend money to see a public institution do public business is offensive. It is the direct result of the high court's refusal to allow its proceedings to be broadcast.

, The National Law Journal

   |0 Comments

The notion that spectators have to camp out or spend money to see a public institution do public business is offensive. It is the direct result of the high court's refusal to allow its proceedings to be broadcast.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202594041947

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.