This has got to be one of the more bizarre and twisted uses of logic by SCOTUS in recent memory. In a 5-4 partisan decision, conservative justices argued that Prop 8 supporters would likely be subject to "irreparable harm" if they were shown on closed-circuit feed:

The high court's five conservatives formed the majority. They said federal judge Vaughan Walker didn't follow court rules when he ordered proceedings broadcast by closed circuit to federal courthouses in several cities. The Supreme Court's four liberals joined a dissent written by Justice Stephen Breyer. The main issue in the case is whether a 2008 voter initiative called Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution by creating a law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Defenders of Proposition 8 say it validly defined marriage in traditional terms by restricting marriage to people who could have children naturally. The proposition's defenders said broadcasting the proceedings could expose witnesses favoring the gay-marriage ban to harassment and ridicule. The Supreme Court majority backed that view, saying Proposition 8 supporters would likely suffer "irreparable harm" if the proceedings were shown through the closed-circuit feed.

Notably, this decision did not discuss posting the trial footage on Youtube, which is being decided upon at a lower court presently. Nevertheless, there has been a great push to frame evangelical Christian and Mormon supporters of Prop 8 and other anti-gay statutes as victims in the past five years. Their right to free speech is infringed upon by the harassment that ensues when they declare homophobic statements in the public sphere. This is actually quite interesting, because indeed LGBT supporters also have a right to free speech in criticizing them. But is that threat so great that they could suffer "irreparable harm"? That seems to me to be a bit of a stretch, no?