A court prohibited video and audio recording (Kirovograd)

The editorial board of the Kirovograd newspaper “Prosto gazeta” received a very interesting document from one of its readers. A Kirovograd dweller, which was a plaintiff at one of court sittings, invited representatives of mass media to the trial. Yet, the audio recording and photography in the courtroom were prohibited. The claimant turned to the court with the petition about journalists’ rights and got the resolution concerning the rights for photography, audio and video recording during the court sitting.

The resolution reads: ”The court decided that there were no grounds for the satisfaction of this petition, since the claimant had no concern with the journalists, who wanted to carry out the recording and whose rights were allegedly violated. This case is not interesting for public”.

Well, this is a rather peculiar approach to the freedom of speech!

Is it possible that mass media may publish the materials about some events only after the court resolution about the public interest of these events? Is not it clear that the prohibition of photography, audio and video recording violates the operating laws and impedes the work of the representatives of mass media?

(http://maidan.org.ua/n/news/1061987521, “Prava ludyny” (English version), August 2003)