To keep this very brief:

I'm not buying the whole bit about this influencing courts to bar 'lawtube' access (or the public in general). You're right that it's possible, but only in a weak sense. I see no reason to think it's especially likely, e.g. given no apparent sanction by the presiding judge to Larry's conduct.

After all, it's possible the conduct of LB's panel making distasteful / unprofessional remarks, merch., and so on could influence courts to preclude access, and yet...

I do think that LB overreacted in this case and should have handled things a bit better, but I also think that she wasn't completely baseless in her concerns.

Sure, she isn't completely baseless, but isn't that the nature of an overreaction? I.e. some core nugget of truth is exaggerated to an extent that it becomes false, or misleading, or problematic, etc.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. I don't think we disagree quite as much as initial appearances may have suggested. If there's one thing I'm certain of it's that I've already wasted too much of my time over YT drama.