...and with public viewing galleries in courts closed or access-limited due to covid, live-streaming over the Internet is the straightforward replacement.

Though there is a substantial difference between having an modestly-sized, in-person audience of dispassionate local journalists, plaintiffs, relatives and the occasional curious member of the public - and having potentially thousands of Internet gawkers and potential doxxers. Especially in cases like rape/sexual-assault and the like: there's definitely a public-interest (for the accused, the victim, the guilty and the innocent alike) in having a limited audience.

...can/would any judges agree to limit the public streaming audience to a smaller number in those cases?