The Fifth Circuit Has Launched a YouTube Channel for Oral Arguments

For the past month, the Fifth Circuit has posted oral argument audio on YouTube.

For several years, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has posted video of oral arguments on YouTube. This feature makes it very easy to follow and locate arguments. Moreover, YouTube allows me to watch oral arguments at double-speed with closed captioning. Eventually, I hope the other circuits catch up to the Ninth Circuit--with respect to technology that is, not jurisprudence.

I am happy to report that the Fifth Circuit has recently joined YouTube. For the past month or so, the Fifth Circuit has posted audio recordings to YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53sMfSc5zlQ

No video, yet. But this audio feature is a vast improvement over the old system. In the past, you had to download individual MP3 files. Now, all of the audio files are stored on YouTube in perpetuity. You can play audio at double-speed, and read the captions. Plus, I love the patriotic-themed colors.

I did a quick survey of the other circuits. Only the Ninth Circuit posts videos on YouTube. The Third Circuit posts video a propriety streaming service. Files take forever to buffer. The Court should move to YouTube. The Seventh Circuit has posted a handful of videos files online, including one with Judge Amy Coney Barrett. But the Seventh Circuit doesn't even use a streaming server. It simply posted .mp4 files. My goodness. Those downloads would crash the server if there was ever any demand. Go to YouTube.

The remaining circuits simply post .mp3 file, without any type of streaming server: First, Second, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, Eleventh, D.C., and Federal Circuit.  These Circuits should follow the Fifth's lead.

Comments

[DaivdBehar]

Good idea. Let's see if retaliation against partipants becomes a bigger problem.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

My thoughts too. Wait until Youtube decides to deplatform somebody, and suddenly their testimony alone is unavailable. Suppose Trump's testimony is rejected, and nobody else. Won't matter if Youtube restores it a few minutes later; the precedent will have been set, and I doubt courts will be amused.

[Brett Bellmore]

That was my thought: Using Youtube for this will interact badly with their censorship policies.

[DaivdBehar]

I was also thinking, person testifies. Now their house has been rezoned by a suspicious fire.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What exactly do you think is getting posted?

[TTT]

If a tenured professor can get fired for reading a Supreme Court opinion, I am sure some of the back & forth in oral arguments will violate Google's Acceptable Use Policy.

[KevinP]

YouTube / Google will be happy to take down even the 5th Circuit’s videos if any of the speech offends against the progressive orthodoxy of the day.

[John F. Carr]

The court infrastructure czar should be doing this, not the individual courts. If they don't have a czar they should elect one.

[A_Lior]

The 7th circuit actually has a YouTube channel, where not only do they post videos, but they live-stream oral arguments! They started a week ago, which might be why you don't know about it.

The very page you link to has the goods.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The Ninth Circuit also has a livestream.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I wonder if the experience of creating a video for each case anyway over the last year will accelerate this trend.

[Grenabull]

Without any doubt, this social network is the most popular and incredibly fast growing app and it's hard to say which is as popular as it is. Thus, it gives opportunities to gain popularity or even earn money. For instance, you can order extra views on this source https://top4smm.com/buy-youtube-views and you become known one day, which leads to popularity and endorsement deals.