The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned an order in the Prop. 8 trial that would have allowed the proceedings to be streamed to other federal court houses in the state and posted on YouTube.
The case, which got underway today, aims to overturn California's ban against gay marriage on constitutional grounds. After the federal judge in the case agreed to a limited broadcast of the proceedings, opponents of gay marriage filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that they could be subject to harassment from gay-marriage proponents. The Supreme Court's temporary restriction will remain in effect until Wednesday.
The Los Angeles Times reports that Justice David Souter offered the only dissent, saying there was insufficient evidence that broadcasting the trial would cause "irreparable harm" to supporters of Prop. 8.
Can one argue a law is constitutional and then claim the public is too unruly to hear that argument?