First of all, whether there is no reason is not something you, the bystander, can determine. According to the law, the presiding judge is responsible for the discipline, order and trial activities of the court. He has the power to decide who can speak and who cannot.
Secondly, the observers are not parties to the case at all. A trial is a serious event, not a TV talent show, and can be commented upon by observers. The audience is not a party to the case and has no opportunity to express their opinions and attitudes during the trial. Even if you are allowed to participate, you should remain silent at all times.
Again, the so-called observers are, in the final analysis, biased. The so-called presiding judge's view that there is no reason not to allow lawyers to speak means that the party you support is not allowed to speak. If you don't let the other person speak, I'm afraid that not only will you not object, but you will also think that the other person has said enough. The opinion of this obviously biased observer is simply inadequate. Is it the judge’s bias that keeps you from speaking? Or are you biased and think the judge should indulge you and let you speak, taking up precious trial time? I have no idea.