It is up to the judge to decide whether cameras are allowed or not. Broadcasters fought eternal battles and asked the courts to allow them to record court cases. Concern about media coverage of trials stems in part from previous media circuses. The new policy states: “A judge may authorize broadcasting, televising, recording or photographing in the courtroom and adjacent areas during the inquest, naturalization or other ceremonial proceedings. A judge may permit such activities in the courtroom or adjacent areas during another trial or during breaks between such proceedings only: (a) for the presentation of evidence; (b) for the continuation of the procedural protocol; (c) for security reasons; (d) for other purposes of the administration of justice; or (e) in accordance with pilot programs approved by the United States Judicial Conference. It was the Supreme Court justices themselves who were most opposed to allowing cameras in their courtrooms. However, several members of the current court have either expressed a desire to allow cameras in proceedings, or at least expressed some interest in considering the idea. C-SPAN compiled a conclusive list of cases in which judges ruled for or against cameras in the courtroom. According to their previous statements, the court is currently split 4-3 to ban cameras, but these two undecided votes could sway the majority in favor of admission. This is a shock to many, especially because a photo can be taken from afar and perhaps without permission or knowledge of the subject. When Bruno Hauptmann was arrested in 1934 and tried in 1935 for kidnapping and murdering the baby, the media attention was enormous. More than 700 journalists participated in the trial and proved disruptive by blinding people with lightning.
It was the first time the U.S. judicial system had to consider whether the press had the right to film or photograph trials, a controversy that continues to this day in high-profile cases. It has been argued that, because the majority of Americans have no personal experience of the legal system and the majority of Americans derive their information about the world exclusively from television, the representation of justice on television is extremely important to the continued viability of the legal system and to the individual`s understanding of that system.  Senator Charles Schumer argued: “The courts are an important part of our government, and the more our institutions of government are presented to the public, the more worthy they become and the more the public understands them. Allowing cameras into our courtrooms will help demystify them and allow the public to judge how well the system is working.  Justice Otto Moore of the Colorado Supreme Court said in 1956: “Hear the complaints that the use of these modern means of transmitting thought in the pulpits of our great churches destroys the dignity of service; that they belittle the pulpit or create misunderstandings in the public mind? The answers are obvious. What is done with dignity will not become unworthy, as more people will be allowed to see and hear.  William O. Douglas argued that televised trials should not be allowed because they allow the press to pressure judges to decide a case in a certain way, particularly in jurisdictions where judges are elected.
 In the 1960s, Texas ignored the Canon 35 and gave presiding judges broad discretion to allow cameras in the courtroom. The young photographer has never been named and her identity remains a mystery. It is also the only photo of the 9 judges of the court captured in the same photo during a session of the Supreme Court. If broadcasting, television listening, recording or photography is permitted in the courtroom or adjacent areas, a judge should ensure that this is done in a manner that: They claim that such broadcasts educate the public and allow them to see how justice is (or perhaps not) being done. They say that under the watchful eye of thousands of spectators, judges, lawyers and jurors are more likely to pay attention to the facts of a case and show their best side to ensure fairer trials. State court judges have traditionally been more open to arguments from broadcasters than federal judges. The second illegal photo was taken in 1937 by a young woman who managed to hide the camera. The photo was published in Time Magazine on June 7, 1937. After their conviction, the defendants claimed that television coverage denied them a fair and impartial trial. The Supreme Court has ruled that without a constitutional ban on such reporting, states should be allowed to experiment with it, even if a defendant objects to it.
In addition, it held that an absolute ban on reporting and broadcasting court hearings could only be justified if it could be shown that the reports were prejudicial to a fair trial. Since 2014, Ukraine has allowed video recordings of hearings without the express permission of the judge within the limits set by law.  In 2015, the Public Hearing Project was launched to videotape court hearings in civil, commercial and administrative matters.  The public hearing project has registered more than 7,000 court cases at various levels. Videos are stored in the public domain, indexed and published. Senator Arlen Spectre has proposed televising the U.S. Supreme Court trial.  The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, introduced by Charles Grassley, “would authorize the presiding judge of a United States Court of Appeals or a United States District Court to permit the public to photograph, electronically record, broadcast or television broadcast judicial proceedings presided over by that judge.”  The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended that it be reviewed by the Senate as a whole.  If the photographer takes photos for purposes that violate the law – such as stalking or stalking – that`s another story. Videos and images are not allowed in federal courts, but most lower courts allow video.
The reason courts ban cameras is simply to avoid distractions and protect privacy. “. But I do not think it is in the best interests of our institution. Our dynamic factories. The discussions that the judges have with the lawyers during the hearing are a great dynamic. When you introduce cameras, it is human nature that I suspect that one of my colleagues is saying something for a quote.