[w4rma]

DENISE GRONES, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, April 7, 2004

(04-07) 17:16 PDT HATTIESBURG, Miss. (AP) --

Two reporters were ordered Wednesday to erase their tape recordings of a speech by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at a Mississippi high school.

Scalia has long barred television cameras from his speeches, but does not always forbid newspaper photographers and tape recorders. On Wednesday, he did not warn the audience at the high school that recording devices would be forbidden.

During the speech, a woman identifying herself as a deputy federal marshal demanded that a reporter for The Associated Press erase a tape recording of the justice's comments. She said the justice had asked that his appearance not be recorded.

The reporter initially resisted, but later showed the deputy how to erase the digital recording after the officer took the device from her hands. The exchange occurred in the front row of the auditorium while Scalia delivered his speech about the Constitution.

The deputy, who identified herself as Melanie Rube, also made a reporter for The Hattiesburg American erase her tape.
…
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/04/07/national1952EDT0758.DTL

Ironic.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think there's any position in the entire goverment, President included, that tends to give somebody a more swollen sense of self-importance than the Supreme court.

[Waitone]

Imperial Judiciary

If they don't want their public utterances recorded, they can simply shut up. And that goes for judges of all political stripes.

[Baba Louie]

Must have something against sound bites being edited and twisted into meaning something he said wasn't what he meant it to sound like... or something :scrutiny:

[Marko Kloos]

The reporter initially resisted, but later showed the deputy how to erase the digital recording after the officer took the device from her hands. The exchange occurred in the front row of the auditorium while Scalia delivered his speech about the Constitution.


The Minister of Irony was not available for comment.

[Baba Louie]

...while Scalia delivered his speech about the Constitution. Makes ya wonder if he's for it... or agin it. Don't it?

[PATH]

No photographs or recording devices may be used during the show! Please do not leave your seats after the show starts. Exits are on left and right, front and rear!:D :uhoh:

[carpettbaggerr]

You want to hear him, you follow his rules. Simple, no? Scalia's the one Justice I'm absolutely sure is for the Constitution.

[AZRickD]

Really? *His* rules? And what was the Federal Marshall there to do? Enforce the law or enforce a personal rule?

What would have happened if the reporter refused? Would the alert Federal Marshmallow have wrestled him to the ground and stomped on his recorder?

Rick

[Don Gwinn]

I guess maybe he could claim copyright or something. . . . but I doubt he could make it stick unless he's selling tickets and making a living at it. Nutty.

He's not KISS or anything, y'know. . . . . :scrutiny:

[R.H. Lee]

It seems no more a breach of 1st Amendment rights than limiting firearms a breach of 2nd Amendment rights; or.....

if 'reporters' were as limited in their 1st rights as we are in our 2nd rights they would be stuck with no more than old Smith Corona typewriters...

[fallingblock]

"Scalia has long barred television cameras from his speeches, but does not always forbid newspaper photographers and tape recorders. On Wednesday, he did not warn the audience at the high school that recording devices would be forbidden."
************************************************************

Someone forgot to make the warning that recording devices were not permitted.:)

[HankB]

. . . the officer took the device from her hands. At which point the reporter should have stood up and yelled "STOP! THIEF!"

[ksnecktieman]

May I see your permit for this concealed recorder please?

Do you have a permit for that printing press?

I think if a "public employee" like a judge speaks it should be public information.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, I agree with the sentiment that if you don't want something recorded, don't say it in a public forum; but I also understand Scalia's point of view.

Look at the horrible press he got for this incident:
http://www.hillnews.com/news/033104/scalia.aspx

This was covered in the Capitol Hill News, LA Times, New York Times, CNN, The Boston Globe, and MSNBC... as well as all the smaller newspapers that feed from the troughs of those listed above.

Yet, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg did the exact same thing Scalia was roasted for:

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:g8J35dcVfDMJ:wb32tv.trb.com/news/la-na-ginsburg11mar11,0,516033.story%3Fcoll%3Dkwbp-news-1+Scalia+Ethics+Ginsburg&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

It gets only brief coverage in small newspapers and conservative magazines like National Review. Eventually after almost a month, the larger news outlets run with it with the following headlines:

Judges accused of ethics violations (http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:zXYbKZH4VgUJ:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4585924/+Scalia+Ethics+Ginsburg&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) - MSNBC (which was actually pretty balanced)

Judicial socializing stirs ethics questions (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/19/ethics.ap/) (17 paragraph news story - 13 paragraphs discussing Scalia - including boldfaced lead and final paragraph, 1 paragraph discussing Ginsburg - third from last, and 3 paragraphs discussing legal ethics in general)

The finally the LA Times, which runs the story with the headline:
Trip With Cheney Puts Ethics Spotlight on Scalia (www.latimes.com/la-na-ducks17jan17,1,4466372.story).

When people are going that far out of their way to nail you to the wall, I imagine you do tend to get a bit oversensitive and tired of having to watch everything you say for fear of being misconstrued.

[sturmruger]

If I was one of those reporters I would have told the Marshal that she could......... I guess we don't need to go into that on this board, but I can garuntee she would have been a little pissed at me.

[Don Gwinn]

Bart, I absolutely understand that, but the truth is it's just too bad. He doesn't have the right to silence those critics.

I suppose you could raise the question of whether recording someone else's words without his consent comes under the same protection as speaking or recording your own, though.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I agree with you Don; though it irks me to see the special attention Scalia seems to get.