During the proceedings, Walker's attorneys objected to the presence of media in the courtroom and then the discussion evolved to the illicit microphones that were placed on the judge's bench and behind books on both sides of counsel table. According to the complaint, which asks for a permanent injunction, "It was then learned that these privileged communications were instantaneously transferred to the headquarters of TMZ Enterprises."

Walker says that as a result of TMZ's conduct, he has experienced "tremendous fear and distrust of the judicial system" and is suing for wiretapping, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and eavesdropping on confidential communication. He's seeking $100,000 in actual damages and more in punitive damages.

The complaint also asserts that TMZ's "conduct is ongoing" and violates attorney-client privilege. Asking for a permanent injunction over TMZ's alleged conduct, the plaintiff says "its threat to the public interest is tremendous. No matter who the alleged victim in a case is, there can be no lawful justification."

But not all mouthy defendants are so lucky. Some of them do go to jail. Take, for example, the case of Brian Noval, a Florida man who in 2009 called a judge a c*ck — twice. Why do all of these things happen in Florida? Anyway, Noval’s antics were captured on film, and he earned himself 120 days in the pokey for his indiscretions. Noval only served four days of that sentence before the judge decided that this cocky defendant had learned his lesson.

As we all know, the internet is for porn, but it’s also for wonderful videos like these. And thanks to Daniel Tosh of Comedy Central’s Tosh.0, sometimes the stars of embarrassing viral videos are given the chance to redeem themselves on cable television. Ms. Soto hasn’t been given the opportunity to participate in one of these yet, but Noval was featured on the show last night.

For reasons that escape me, we never covered Noval’s incident in 2009, but now that he’s been brought back into the pop culture limelight, we’ve got some funny videos to entertain you with….

We’ll give you some info on the judge who heard Brian Noval’s case before you watch the video. Apparently Judge John Hurley of the Broward County Court presides over its first appearance division, and is known for his “spunk, one-liners and, on Fridays, bow ties.” To put it differently, this man is not to be f**ked with.

But Noval didn’t know that, so he called Judge Hurley a c*ck, like any man with common decency and respect for the judicial system would. And plus, it’s Florida — of course someone would think it’s acceptable to call a judge a c*ck in Florida. And without further ado, here’s the entertaining segment from Tosh.0:

Well, you don’t have to be wearing a seersucker suit to acknowledge that Daniel Tosh is correct when he says that “judges are basically parents for people who have sh*tty ones.” And we now know that Andrew Dice Clay could have a promising career ahead of himself as a criminal defense attorney. Because with a closing like, “Hickory dickory dock, my client has the right to call that judge a c*ck,” how can you possibly go wrong?

Broward judge sets high bar [Sun Sentinel]
Web Redemption – Courtroom C*ck Guy [Tosh.0]

More stories from Above The Law:

• Is Yahoo Serious?
• I Need A Contract Attorney: An ‘Ivy League’ Contract Attorney
• Avast Ye Maties! Kozinski Benchslap Ho!

What good is giving the press freedom if it is not allowed to use the tool of its trade? In this case, that tool is a video camera. Similarly, law enforcement has many tools of its trade, the most important being the law. In California, the law includes prohibiting the very acts Prop 8 supporters and--apparently--the Justices are so concerned about. Perhaps it's too much to ask, but can we just let both journalists and police do their jobs?

By staying the broadcast of this trial--and impliedly finding that Prop 8 supporters will suffer "irreparable harm" absent a stay--the Supreme Court seems to be advocating curtailment of the press as a means of law enforcement. In a sense, there's a backwards Heckler's Veto at play: the Court is protecting the right of witnesses to speak by limiting the ways in which they will be heard and preventing retaliation by those who will not have heard them. Instead, those witnesses should take the stand knowing they will be given the largest forum possible in which to speak and the strongest protection against those who may retaliate when they do so.

And that retaliation is a big may. Among their reasons for requesting a stay, the petitioners say that "public broadcast can intimidate witnesses who might refuse to testify or alter their stories when they do testify if they fear retribution by someone who may be watching the broadcast." Further, "all of the petitioners' witnesses have expressed concern over the potential public broadcast of trial proceedings and some have stated that they will refuse to testify if the district court goes forward with its plan."

In a controversial case such as this one, no doubt the unpopular speaker is a nervous one. But I'm skeptical that witnesses already committed to testifying will suddenly shy away because of the prospect of video dissemination. Do they not realize that, without a single camera, the San Jose Mercury News is reporting live accounts that include the names of those taking the stand? That special interest groups will be Twittering their testimony as they speak? That there are already websites identifying Prop 8 supporters and where they live? Banning a broadcast, I believe, will not change this. But to allow a broadcast, I'm certain, will further enlighten the debate....