Slashdot Mirror
Judge Grants MS's No-Press Request
jeffy124 writes: "We already know that Microsoft has requested to bar the media from proceedings in the anti-trust suit. Judge Kollar-Kotelly has granted that request. A 1913 law permitted public access to anti-trust proceedings, but only if the federal government were involved. Because the case no longer includes the feds, that law no longer applies, so MS has successfully closed the doors to the press and public." An anonymous reader points out this coverage at InfoWorld as well.
Don't overreact; the Judge had to rule on law, and that's what she did. It's not like once the cameras are barred MS will be able to do something sneaky; the state AGs are not as sympathetic to MS as the Ashcroft "Justice" Department is.
It looks like reporters ARE going to be allowed in. In this AP story, the judge rules that reporters CAN listen to pretrial depositions, unless MS can prove that confidential information would be disclosed.
The Associated Press is saying the opposite in this story, titled Reporters OK'd at Microsoft Hearing. I quote the first paragraph: "The judge in the Microsoft antitrust case ruled Tuesday that news organizations can listen to lawyers question technology executives in pretrial depositions unless Microsoft can prove the sessions would reveal confidential information."
The problem is that defendants -- and witnesses -- have rights, too, even when the defendant is Microsoft and the witnesses are Microsoft employees.
To get an idea of how this comes into play, you should understand the nature of a deposition. In a deposition, attorneys have far more latitude than they would in questioning a witness at trial.
The downside is that damaging or merely private information can be generated that turns out to be irrelevant to the case. For example, it's not uncommon to ask deposees about things like drug problems, financial problems, etc, that might reflect on their credibility. It might come up that some middle manager working on some project is a recovered and teetotalling alcoholic or was arrested for shoplifting as a teen or some such thing. That information probably has nothing to do with the case, never makes it into the courtroom and really isn't anybody's damned business.
That's one reason why some proceedings are not public.
Your "tearing, mangling and persuing mundane details" doesn't just describe the media, it also describes the Court process. Have you ever sat through a real court case? "The wheels of justice may grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine." In this sense, the media is accurite.
As for the OJ criminal trial, I don't think the presence of cameras influenced the case one bit. It sure did influence the public, though. Calling the outcome a "travesty" betrays a vengeful motive, or at least a misunderstanding of "the true goal of the proceedings" of criminal justice. It is not to punish wrongdoers, but to maintain order by punishing wrongdoers. Subtile but big difference. Do you know why it is better that 100 guilty walk free than 1 innocent be convicted? Hint -- it has to do with freedom, and IMHO has resulted in Anglo-Saxon countries enjoying greater economic development than those without this legal tradition. Or doesn't a impeached, perjuring, racist star prosecution witness count towards "reasonable doubt"?
As for Bill Clinton, his trial was by the Senate with no cameras present. How did cameras or the media circus win him leniency? [Where is that transcript?] They exposed most of his wrongdoing.
I will answer your question: Yes, coverage of the MS proceedings is vital. On the principle of open courts alone. Sure, some people may be mislead by the media. Better that than rumours and innuendo. Fortunately, we will get coverage. It's only the depositions that are private, probably as they should be until admitted into evidence.