Judicial exceptions: when filming in court is not possible

Published on July 12, 2026 | Translated from Spanish

In the judicial sphere, the general rule allows the recording of hearings. However, there are very exceptional cases where a judge may restrict this right. The protection of the privacy of minors, victims, or protected witnesses justifies limiting the dissemination of certain proceedings, always under a case-by-case analysis.

Photorealistic cinematic scene of a courtroom during a trial, judge raising hand to stop a camera, video camera on tripod with red recording light off, courtroom clerk holding a document with a protective seal icon, a minor and a shielded witness sitting behind opaque glass partition, lawyers at wooden desks with laptops and legal files, soft natural light from tall windows, dramatic shadows, tense atmosphere, technical legal environment, ultra-detailed interior, professional judicial setting

Shielding technology: real-time obfuscation systems 🛡️

To comply with these restrictions without paralyzing the process, real-time obfuscation systems are implemented. Software tools apply facial blurring, voice distortion, or selective pixelation during the transmission. These solutions, integrated with judicial videoconferencing platforms, allow the hearing to proceed normally while protecting the identity of vulnerable parties, without the need for post-editing.

The judge said no to the phone, but the lawyer recorded with the tablet 😅

There is always a clever person trying to sneak in a device. While the judge dictates that recording is not allowed, some lawyer pulls out a tablet pretending to take notes. Later, the video ends up on TikTok with distorted audio and the witness's face looking like a potato emoji. Technology helps, but human creativity to bypass it knows no bounds.