In a court case from 1966 the court ruled that the government can close the case if too much publicity might cause a problem.
I'm wondering why the Derek Chauvin case is being broadcast despite this. I mean, there's even been protests about this thing, that's gotta influence the jury and the outcome
Obviously they want the rioting and hatred.
They already got that. They don't need a reason
I think the problem with that is they might not grant standing until he's first had a trial then appeals on that basis. We all know it applies already. The media have made this trial impossible to conduct fairly themselves.
For them it may seem like no loss. If they report objectively his innocence becomes apparent and arguments for guilt fall apart. If they don't then they have some chance at least of achieving their goal of putting an innocent man in jail to support their narrative and to play the hero. If they achieve that watch them all sing their own praises. As they see it, it's like gambling without a stake. A free roll of the dice.
In the case there all I see is a reversal of the decision. No punishment for the media and no recompense. If Chauvin were found guilty it would likely take a long time to appeal. If that happens and he is released by then the press will have moved on to other things and it wouldn't get much attention. I suspect however that they will kill him in jail.
Law went out the window if you're a lefty back in 2008.