Last, WJAC argues that a juror’s right to personal privacy, alone, is not a significant governmental interest necessitating the prohibition in question. In our view, WJAC has ignored the extraordinary effects of cameras on judicial proceedings. The United States Supreme Court has held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitu tion protect the right of the press and the public to attend criminal trial proceedings. See Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982); Richmond, supra; U.S. Const. amend. I; U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1; see also Commonwealth v. Fenstermaker, 515 Pa. 501, 504 n. 1, 530 A.2d 414, 416 (1987) (<HOLDING>). This right, however, is not unqualified. The
holding under indiana code section 313262 that the juvenile court erred in releasing the transcript of a confidential proceeding to news media holding that access rights of the news media and of the general public are identical in scope recognizing that incidents in which inmates have obtained drugs weapons and other contraband are welldocumented in case law and regularly receive the attention of the news media holding that media members had no constitutional right of access to tapes holding that representatives of the news media have the standing to contest a court order restricting public access to legal proceedings