A separate overflow room for non-media doesn’t allow use of laptops or other personal devices but offers perks over the courtroom including cushioned seats, ample space, and better air conditioning. For variety he can sit and work in a media room at the courthouse where journalists can watch a closed-circuit broadcast. With the Google case limited to in-person viewing, Weitzman mostly watches from Mehta’s courtroom, where use of phones and computers is barred. Media and civil rights organizations say widespread streaming of cases during the pandemic, including witness testimony and antitrust trials, did not cause problems. The conference says it’s still studying whether it can extend access without raising the risk of witnesses becoming intimidated or altering their testimony because of the remote audience. The Judicial Conference, which oversees federal district court operating rules, just issued a policy permitting “public live audio” of court proceedings, but it doesn’t cover trials. He argues that closing the courtroom for some testimony to protect Google’s secrets prevents the public from understanding fundamental details in the case. “This judge was persuaded that the risk that Google would have information it doesn’t want made public get out was too high, and so he only allows people who can take two months off and spend that time in DC to actually hear the case,” Stoller says. He also worried about accidental leaks from portions of the trial that will be closed to the public to protect the trade secrets of Google and witnesses. Mehta cited his own “serious concerns” about unauthorized recording of witness testimony. He denied a request from groups that included Stoller’s American Economic Liberties Project to allow remote public access for the trial after weighing prosecutors’ support for streaming and Google’s opposition. Prosecutors and Google chose to forego a jury, so judge Amit Mehta will decide who wins. Matthew Stoller, American Economic Liberties Project “Regardless of your view on this trial and Big Tech, it will affect everyone, so it’s important that the public is aware of what’s going on as the trial unfolds and to record what happens,” Weitzman says. Any antitrust junkie-or frustrated Google Search user-wanting an affordable readout from the sparsely attended, era-defining trial, must rely on Weitzman, or a handful of others firing off tweets, skeets, and Substacks. Legal and regulatory publications that can commit charge hundreds of dollars for content subscriptions. Most reporters focused on Google are based in San Francisco. The trial is scheduled to run near-daily through November and few news outlets can dedicate a reporter to a courtroom seat for eight hours a day for the duration. All are obsessively documenting their observations through social media and daily email newsletters. Some have pushed off day jobs or moved near to the Washington, DC, courthouse. The fresh law graduate is among a handful of legal or antitrust geeks trying to attend most, if not all, of the public portions of the trial, fearing a historic moment of tech giant accountability will escape public notice.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |