Legality of the Cat Lawyer video
<p>You may have seen the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f9eDBpnkaU" rel="noreferrer">recent video</a> of the lawyer who couldn't turn off the cat filter during a Zoom trial.</p>
<p>What struck me about it is the legal warning in the top left frame warning that it is prohibited to record or livestream the hearing. And yet somebody recorded it.</p>
<p>Is somebody going to face contempt charges for this?</p>

<p>The warning notice is intended for viewers and participants, not for the court to make its own official record of the proceedings.</p>
<p>Presumably, it was this court record that the judge released for <em>educational purposes</em> under his own Order via <a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/JudgeFergusonTX/status/1359202090824966151" rel="noreferrer">Twitter</a>.  In which case, there has been no contempt of court.</p>

<p>Last night's news included a 2 minute segment, <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=2137407" rel="nofollow noreferrer">'I'm not a cat'</a>.</p>
<p>District Court Judge, the Honorable Roy Ferguson, clearly indicates why he released the video to the public:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This is a time when people are down, and depressed and lonely.<br />
And angry at each other, and at the government.<br />
…<br />
Everyone is enjoying it.<br />
The feedback is all positive.<br />
People are happy to see it, and they're laughing.<br />
And I hear that that's something we need more of.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Unless he released it without the permission of the embarrassed lawyer, which is highly unlikely, he did nothing inappropriate.</p>

contempt-of-court