The man authorities believe would have been the fifth hijacker on United Airlines Flight 93 – which crashed in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11 – appeared in a Virginia courtroom last week along with lawyers for a television network. The group is arguing in favor of televising the trial of the first person charged in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Zacarias Moussaoui, a 33-year-old French citizen of Moroccan descent, is accused of conspiring to “murder thousands of people” with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, according to an indictment filed Dec. 11, 2001.

Court TV filed the motion to televise the trial, and argues that the historical importance of the trial warrants it to be televised. The trial is already open to the public, meaning all observers and reporters have the right to attend if they so please. Court TV lawyers argued that there is no constitutional distinction between going to the trial in person as an observer and watching it on TV.

The problem is that Rule 53 of the federal criminal procedure bans the taking of photographs in the courtroom and radio broadcasting during trials. Court TV and other media organizations are claiming that this rule is unconstitutional, because of the First Amendment. What better way to serve the public than to have a camera inside the courtroom? As Court TV argued, this would be much better than having to resort to secondhand summaries for news on the trial.

Moussaoui himself is in favor of televising the trial for equally understandable reasons. By televising the trial, Moussaoui – a high-profile defendant in the first trial to come as a result of the terrorist attacks – will be guaranteeing another layer of protection from an unfair trial. With cameras in the courtroom and under public scrutiny, the trial will most certainly be fairly conducted.

The arguments against the televising of the trial are lacking. The government argues that televised proceedings would undermine security, influence prospective jurors and intimidate witnesses. The government argues that cameras will compromise the legal process, making a public spectacle of a trial of utmost national security.

But those are not strong arguments. Whether the trial is televised or not, it will be intensely covered by the media. There is an extraordinary amount of interest to the public in this trial, and cameras will not affect that.

And as Court TV attorney Lee Levine said, the right to observe a trial should not be limited “to the 60 or 70 people who can crowd into a courtroom.” America faced an unheralded crisis on Sept. 11, and this trial – of a man believed to be in cahoots with those terrorists – should be televised for all to see.

The arguments against it are weaker than the arguments for it – ensuring a fair trial and allowing the public a look at something they have every right to see.

editorialboard: Andrea Hauser, Tim Paluch, Michelle Kann, Zach Calef, Omar Tesdell