That the real thing that happened was that the current judge in the proceedings erroneously allowed the photographer to begin taking the photos in dispute?
A previous judge had granted an order baring photos. The current judge's feeling was that photography was okay. He granted the request by the Times for photography (I suspect that the photographer was aware of the order, but that's another story).
After some photos were taken, the fellows defense attorney reminded the current judge of the prior order, and the current judge ordered a halt and hold on the photos.
So the photos were in fact illegal (not due to actions of the photographer, but because of improper procedure).
He should have found that the prior order was to be rescinded after a hearing and then allowed (or not) the photos to be taken.
No nefarious prior restraint, or any of the crap thrown up by the Times.
I find that the current thread and posting have totally missed the point of this, and have been misled by the Times.
I am pained in that I'm totally on the side of the rights of the press, but it has to be done by the law, not by some specious maneuver to get something they clearly are not entitled to.
Pick battles where some intent exists to suppress the press. And the press can't afford these sorts of cluster f**ks if they want to maintain their special status of having access. There are too many entities that do suppress the press and get away with it, and this was not one of them.
If they had taken the time, they could appeal the original order (which they may be doing) and get photos after the fact. This guy will be in the same orange jump suit sometime in the future, and if appropriate they can publish it then. If not, aren't they supposed to be reporters, not shapers of the news and story? If the guy smartens up and requests no more appearances w/o street clothes tough that the current photographer jumped the gun and set off a mess.
Here is an earlier link to the times story with mention of the events.
I have thought a lot recently on what will keep the local newspaper alive. The thing that the paper has is that it is around for you to read when you are not online.
The average user now is not only online for reading a conventional web page, but on pda's now as well.
I have not seen that there has been any discussion about the contribution that could be made with such models as a twitter like portal, or connection with editing, and feeding news based on location to users, but there is an increase for mobile users to get this information, and on the other hand not be milked for the costs.
With Google sniffing around there in the mobile search and information area there is also the need for those with the reporting, and editing capabilities of newspapers to adapt to that possible market.
The paper editions will need to be adapted to longer term type information, and advertising that fits that model better than online.
Online web news should be used to draw the users to advertising that should have value to the local advertisers. I would read useful ads on the web pages, but most newspapers have gone to cluttered messes of pages, and I try my best at the current time to avoid the ad's. they are usually not of interest where they are placed.
Finding ads for local establishments, and national store chains that are on point to what I want would be better served by a local newspaper than having to jump from website to web site, or go to a search engine. Knowing what stores are there, and what they want to sell is better served by what the newspapers have, but they seem to concentrate on the type of web pages that are like late nite ads for diet pills than giving any thought to where the ads are, or how useful they are.
Also newspapers have the luxury of having the words and ink being composed and edited by individuals who don't have to look good from the belt up to talk on TV, and can actually think. I hope that is not lost, as most TV seems to be going to just pretty faces, and no sign of anything that they are reporting, vs. reading the AP feed, or the local newspaper on the air.
as to what would I pay for, archive access at a reasonable price (not $20 to look up an article) would be one thing that the newspapers could offer. Digitizing it so it is search-able would cost money, and be useful to those who are interested in history, and would be very interesting to me.