The Los Angeles Probate Court is now SUSPENDING the Remote Audio Attendance Program, which allowed us to hear Britney’s testimony.

[ThisMeowBiteback]

I’m not mad at that in person is better!! Better chance for Britney to see her fans out there supporting her 

[MeAgainstTheMusic_]

I wonder if Britney will attend the next hearing in July. If she does she’ll need to go in person.

[K-man]

I’m not surprised they suspended the audio, because I was shocked when I was able to find the link on Twitter when she was giving her testimony. It’s not our fault we want our girl free and this to be over! 

Me showing up to the court on July 14th and sitting in back of the room 

[BritneyLVR]

Of course they did! 

[juniorcasemiro]

5 hours ago, Style. said:

Why would they do that? 

So we don’t make livestream parties whenever there’s a Britney hearing 

[MissSpearsSaysSo]

That’s okay. I’m glad Britney got to speak, abs that she was heard. 

[Anti-Hero]

3 hours ago, SlayOut said:

I mean if this is directly related to Britney’s testimony, it makes sense. It explicitly stated that recording the audio stream was in violation of court rules/California code. And it was obviously recorded!

That being said, I’m happy some soul out there engaged in an act of civil disobedience, since Britney’s voice detailing her testimony has been more powerful than seeing a written transcript… at the same time, I hope all the other people participating in court proceedings are not too impacted by this policy shift.

I don’t think many outlets have actually played Britney’s recorded voice though, only excerpted text quotes from other media transcripts…

Anyways, interesting news!

Yeah i was going to say, it’s a general rule in all courthouses that you cannot record inside. Livestreams make it easier for people to anonymously record without any enforcement. People can still attend open hearings. Now that everything is reopening, it makes sense they’re taking down the streams, which costs money to operate.

[rik]

1 hour ago, danny1994 said:

Yeah i was going to say, it’s a general rule in all courthouses that you cannot record inside. Livestreams make it easier for people to anonymously record without any enforcement. People can still attend open hearings. Now that everything is reopening, it makes sense they’re taking down the streams, which costs money to operate.

it’s just very annoying is all 

[femmepop]

6 hours ago, MathCarmignani said:

Yeah but the courthouses are open so maybe this particular thing isn't a big conspiracy. They are just closing a channel that opened because of the pandemic. Chill

yeah sounds like normal protocol to transition out of pandemic mode.

sure am grateful we got to hear her when we did though! the timing worked out in her favor. otherwise the press would just pick and choose quotes but it was totally necessary to hear it in her own voice!

[joe sp]

Too little to late Benji

[SlayOut]

29 minutes ago, Rik said:

it’s just very annoying is all 

Maybe if people followed the rules we’d still have remote access but here we are

[ChaosMoogle]

But they’re not suspending the conservatorship.

Okay.

[Hooked-On-Knee]

13 minutes ago, SlayOut said:

Maybe if people followed the rules we’d still have remote access but here we are

It's funny because everyone was calling those who were actually streaming it properly through the court, "selfish", but then proceeded to get the last parts of the hearing cut off from us because they decided to record.

[SlayOut]

2 minutes ago, Hooked-On-Knee said:

It's funny because everyone was calling those who were actually streaming it properly through the court, "selfish", but then proceeded to get the last parts of the hearing cut off from us because they decided to record.

Not to mention so many people in that thread were saying fans listening on the official stream were preventing Britney from logging on.  As if Britney was joining the same way we were and we were the cause of technical difficulties!

[land]

I don't think it matters much now. The main purpose of listening to Britney testify was to show the reality to those that were in denial and that still thought #freebritney was some conspiracy theory and that if she was really against the c-ship she would've filed to terminate it. That purpose was fulfilled with the audio recording. Now everyone knows the truth and future articles, reportings and documentaries made about it or about any future hearings - doesn't matter if sealed or not - can really jump on any accusations made against the team con.

I remember back on the first hearing after she got out of the mental health facility that reports being made that she claimed to be held against her will there were being labeled as over exaggerated/or made up by the #freebritney movement, now we know they were 100% true... there's always some whistleblower in these audiences especially because we are talking about a very corrupt court, everyone there has their price and will leak info to the media somehow. 

[ElectricPlatypusLove]

The courts are LITERALLY as shady as the Spears family when it comes to this conservatorship. Britney's life story has me so utterly disillusioned with society right now. The courts have permitted everything that this woman has gone through. It's corruption beyond corruption.

[Stefani]

Time to book my seat for the courtroom residency then. Also why is this minor detail the big takeaway from Brit's testimony?

[Prince Ali]

Ha impact!!!

Britney Spears Hearing Recording Prompts L.A. Courts to Stop Offering Audio Streams – The Hollywood Reporter 

It didn’t take long for audio from Britney Spears’ June 23 conservatorship hearing to make the rounds on the internet, despite a clear and emphatic warning from the L.A. County Judge Brenda Penny that recording wasn’t allowed. Whether the person, or people, who did it will face any penalty remains to be seen, but the court has taken another action in response: It shut down its remote audio attendance program entirely.

Under California state and local court rules, no recordings of court hearings are allowed (including by members of the press) without advance permission from the judge in the form of a written order. According to the 2019 California Rules of Court, “Any violation of this rule or an order made under this rule is an unlawful interference with the proceedings of the court and may be the basis for an order terminating media coverage, a citation for contempt of court, or an order imposing monetary or other sanctions as provided by law.”

Penny, at the beginning of the hearing, not only reminded those listening about the policy against recording but also warned against live-tweeting and told those physically in the courtroom that they needed to use a pen and paper instead of a laptop for their notes. Still, audio of Spears testimony began circulating just hours after the hearing, including in a YouTube post that has since been taken down because of a copyright claim from the court.

The next day, the court issued an announcement that, effective Monday, the remote audio attendance program would be shut down.

“Effective June 28, the Court will no longer offer the Remote Audio Attendance Program (RAAP) to listen remotely to courtroom proceedings,” read the announcement, which also detailed the rolling back of other COVID-19 protocols. “The Court implemented this temporary program during the pandemic recognizing there may be abuses of the Court’s orders prohibiting recording, filming, and distribution of proceedings. Widespread breaches by the public in a recent court proceeding highlighted the need to return to in person, open courtroom proceedings, which is a welcome development.”

The program, which was launched in January in response to the pandemic, marked a step toward improved court access for media. Even pre-COVID, cramped court rooms and varying judicial preferences regarding the use of laptops for note-taking made covering proceedings logistically difficult. And, after the O.J. Simpson ****** trial became a televised international spectacle, courts have long been reticent to give even bona fide news outlets permission to record.

Amid the pandemic, federal courts have also dabbled in allowing access to hearings via audio and video feeds (though the 9th District U.S. Court of Appeals has been routinely streaming hearings for quite some time). There’s currently a bill in the U.S. Senate, dubbed the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2021, that would give federal judges broad discretion to allow courtroom proceedings to be televised, or otherwise recorded. The bipartisan bill is opposed by the Judicial Conference, the policymaking arm for U.S. courts, which argues cameras have an intimidating and negative affect on litigants, witnesses and jurors.

During the June 23 hearing, as you can hear in the illicit audio, the performer said her conservatorship was “abusive” and listed a series of complaints including that she didn’t have any control over the medication she’s prescribed and couldn’t get someone to make a doctor’s appointment to remove her IUD. On Tuesday, her father Jamie Spears filed two documents in response to those claims. One is a petition asking Penny to “order an investigation into the issues and claims” she raised. The other is a response to a pending motion that would make Jodi Montgomery’s temporary role as conservator of Spears’ person a permanent one, which requests an evidentiary hearing. Jamie Spears notes that he hasn’t had any input into his daughter’s medical care since 2019 and challenges the contention that she doesn’t have capacity to consent to medical treatment. He notes Spears’ court-appointed attorney Samuel D. Ingham III stated in the petition her incapacity was determined by a court order in October 2014, but Jamie contends “there was no such finding, and there is no such order.” (Read that filing below.)

On Wednesday, Penny signed an order that reflects her decision back in November to install corporate fiduciary Bessemer Trust as a co-conservator of the estate alongside Jamie Spears.

The next hearing is currently set for July 14. Unless there’s a reversal of court policy, it will not be streamed. The Judicial Council, which is California’s policymaking arm, says it’s a local court decision and, “We’re not aware of any movement toward consistent audio or video streams of court proceedings.”

[Matou]

They are scared. The program was temporary but it's a good timing for them I guess.

[VanillaCandlez]

AP here: