You can say that but it’s entirely different from bringing up deliberately pointing the camera of a device at the jury. And again, there was nothing about them looking at something in particular or anything suggesting the intent to film. As I said it is also very easy to know if the camera is activated.

and do the released facts say here someone was pointing a camera at the jury and the scolding happened as a result of that or are you just inventing a hypothetical with nothing to do with what is being discussed?

I don’t know if it was intentional marketing but it does have that effect and was kinda pointless. I assume people have camera phones in the courtroom with them too but possessing a device that can record doesn’t mean you intend to do it and I doubt Meta has tampered with their glasses so if they were to do that it would be noticeable thanks to the recording LED…