In his recent year-end state of the federal judiciary report, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke of the role the courts play in educating the public. He praised programs in which students visit courthouses and observe the proceedings. Conspicuously absent however from the report was any comment on the ability of the public to observe oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States. Cameras in that courtroom have always been and continue to be forbidden.

We have repeatedly urged that the court allow its proceedings to be televised. We know of no good reason for the prohibition. Some justices have been quoted as expressing the concern that cameras might encourage "grandstanding" by lawyers or even their colleagues. Experience of televised proceedings in other trial and appellate courts has shown that not to be the case. Within a few minutes, participants forget the camera eye and focus on their important business at hand.

Of more concern is the argument that snippets of argument will be broadcast out of context or edited misleadingly. We cannot blithely assume that making video of oral argument available will elevate the standard of public discourse or further understanding of the court's work. It is not as if the arguments will only be broadcast verbatim on C-SPAN to sophisticated viewers who can follow them in detail. Quite the contrary, in this age of social media, when video footage is just raw material for cunning editors, we can look forward with trepidation to memes of "Justice X's Greatest Putdowns" or "Justice Y Zones Out" or "Justice Z: Enemy of American Values." And because so many of our fellow citizens get their information about public affairs through pictures rather than the written word, this kind of material could do far more harm to the court as an institution than even the most abusive written criticism.

It is true that many appellate courts, including New Jersey's Supreme Court, have long permitted cameras without harm. But the United States Supreme Court is different in kind, not merely degree, from all other American courts. It is a high-profile political institution. Its decisions have transformed American life and will again. Regardless of whether they would prefer to be known and judged simply for their written work product, its justices are politically controversial public figures to a degree unknown to the judges of more obscure tribunals. The incentive for partisan or merely snarky misuse of video material is much greater than for other courts. And because of the nature of many issues that the court considers, the incentive for advocates to appeal over the justices' heads to the audience is also greater.

Regardless of these qualms, however, we strongly favor televising the Supreme Court's oral arguments. Precisely because it is a political institution like no other court, the public deserves to see and make its own mind up about what can now only be viewed by a few hundred spectators in person. For better or worse, television is where most modern Americans get their information about what goes on in the wider world. If video footage is abused, it will be the same abuse that is suffered by all other figures of public authority in 21st century American democracy. Ultimately, the people will judge the court, and no one, however wise, can be trusted to say that they are incapable of doing so and should be denied the information they need. As we have in the past, we once again urge that the court televise its public proceedings so that they may be actually, as opposed to nominally, public.