if you are the attorney general of georgia you're going to be , careful what you say in front of the supreme court. i don't know the cameras are going to make a difference. >> it is too late. it is a public hearing. some people get to go in. we are done. any other institution of government would have to televise. >> ronald goldfarb wrote a book, and he says it follows the exact same pattern, skepticism and concern at the beginning until acceptance, and then enthusiasm. it follows the same archetypal get used to it. iowa has had cameras in their court for more than 30 years. their chief justice has come around and testified at congress saying no problem. it has been great. we put them online. people have access to it. as far as this fear of the

unknown, what other way can we casted out other than these similar cases? other than running an experiment, that is our best guess. the evidence is extremely in favor of it. >> it can't be the case that only unimportant things, only ohio. that was the core argument when they decided to pull the tv cameras out of the prop 8. when the district court was ready to roll. when the court issues its procure em, the argument is that it is too important. people care too much to have cameras. what is that argument? only unimportant things should be televised? >> that decision had a substantive effect. if people could have watched that trial, they would have seen they would have seen ted olson ise destroyed any

plausible public-policy argument against same-sex marriage other than religious. that would've had a greater effect. that procedural decision was hugely important. >> it is interesting when judge walker handed down his decision in that case, this is true of the ninth circuit, everybody got an e-mail. here is the decision. everyone opens it, you read a pdf. the supreme court, they put their robes on and take the bench, they go up there and read a summary of their opinion because that is an exercise in transparency. they don't have to do that. no other court does that. i understand that you think they ought to televise that. because it would be meaningful and historically significant to hear it. it is important to remember that that is something the supreme court does. lots of other courts don't do it. if congress decided to pull their funding, they might say they won't do that anymore. >> let's stop us there. it is time.

but i want to say -- you guys should write articles about this. [laughter] but, i really want to thank gabe ross and his team for putting this together. i want to thank nyu. i want to thank bruce brown, eric siegel, and willie jay, and clay johnson all of you for , being here. this is a terrifically important issue. this is been one of the best panels on the issue i've ever seen. >> i agree. [applause] [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] and coming up next, the supreme court oral argument in abc versus aereo. the court heard the case yesterday in a cnn report that could fundamentally change the way viewers could watch broadcast television as the major networks challenge the company aereo. which is a subscription fee that allows viewers to watch television on their smart phones

on their computers. wins, some legal experts said i could undermine the entire broadcast tv business model, but i law to fester at uc berkeley tells the and and that if the justices do side with aereo, the network could go to congress to find a fix. we will take a listen to the oral argument now from the supreme court's on tuesday. it is about one hour. >> we'll hear argument next in case 13461, american broadcasting companies v aereo. mr. clement. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- aereo's business model is to enable thousands of paying strangers to watch live tv online. aereo's legal argument is that it can make all of that happen without publicly performing. but congress passed a statute that squarely forecloses that rather counterintuitive submission. because although the internet and the thousands of mini antennas are new, the basic

service that aereo is providing is not materially different from the service provided by the cable company before this court in 1969. >> why aren't they cable companies? >> they're not -- >> i'm looking at -- everybody's been arguing this case as if for sure they're not. but i look at the definition of a cable company, and it seems to fit. a facility located in any state. they've got a, whatever they have a warehouse or a building in brooklyn, that receives signal transmissions or programs broadcast by television broadcast stations. they're taking the signals off of the -- >> they're taking the signals, right. >> i'm sorry, they are. makes secondary transmissions by wires, cables, or other communication channels. it seems to me that a little antenna with a dime fits that definition. to subscribing members of the