Author Topic: Scalia-defender of freedoms.  (Read 653 times)

Offline Munkii

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 552
Scalia-defender of freedoms.
« on: April 10, 2004, 12:19:17 AM »
Unless of course you want to tape a speech given by him in a public school.  *edit* Meant to say public speech in private school.

Ripsnort special
----------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Several journalism groups are expressing outrage over the actions of a deputy marshal who forced the erasure of two journalists' audio recordings of a speech by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at a Mississippi high school.

The U.S. Marshals Service stopped short of fully defending the deputy's actions.

"The deputy's actions were based on the justice's standing policy prohibiting such recordings of his remarks," said Marshals Service spokesman David Turner.

Officials at Presbyterian Christian High School in Hattiesburg did not announce the policy before Scalia's Wednesday appearance there.

Two reporters recorded the beginning of Scalia's speech but were ordered to stop and to delete their tapes. One reporter complied, the other refused.

The Associated Press reported that at the event Deputy Marshal Melanie Rube demanded that an AP reporter erase a digital recording of the speech.

The reporter resisted, but when the deputy took the recording device from her, she showed the deputy how to erase the speech, the AP said.

Rube also made a reporter with the Hattiesburg American erase her tape, the AP said.

The U.S. Marshals service did not dispute the AP account of what had happened.

"In such cases the Marshals Services takes the appropriate actions," said Turner.

But when asked whether the deputy's actions were "appropriate," the spokesman replied, "I can't go that far right now."

Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio and Television News Directors Association, sent a letter Friday to Benigno G. Reyna, director of the U.S. Marshal Service, and Nehemiah Flowers, U.S. Marshal for the southern district of Mississippi.

"This high-handed and unlawful seizure of a journalist's work product without any regard whatsoever for the rights and responsibilities of the news media product is totally unacceptable," she wrote in the letter published on the group's Web site.

"There exists no legal precedent to support the conclusion that it is permissible for government officials to seize and destroy recordings reporters have made in the course of covering a public event. Actions such as those taken by Deputy Marshal Rube, which are designed to prevent reporters from disseminating information that has been lawfully acquired, amount to nothing short of censorship."

The Society of Professional Journalists, in a statement Friday, called on Scalia "to respect the First Amendment rights of journalists to gather news when he speaks at public events."

"In what can be only described as an ultimate constitutional irony, Scalia was praising the Constitution and its First Amendment while a federal marshal harassed reporters and curtailed their right to gather news at a public appearance," said Joel Campbell, SPJ's Freedom of Information Committee co-chair, in the statement.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press sent letters Thursday to the Marshals Service and the Justice Department, complaining the deputy's actions violated a federal law that prohibits the government from seizing journalists' work materials.

Turner said the letter had not arrived Friday, and that when it is received Reyna will respond.

Scalia often prohibits audio and video recordings of his speeches, but does allow the media to cover his non-judicial appearances. His policy is similar to that of his colleagues on the bench.

At an earlier event the same day, officials at nearby William Carey College announced the recording prohibition before Scalia made his remarks.

Court officials said Scalia was unavailable Friday, and would have no comment on the matter.

Turner said the Marshals Service had no comment on whether the actions were justified, but stressed that the agency's personnel routinely "try to be helpful to justices and judges, and to ensure their preferences are met."

The Marshals Service has the responsibility to provide security for Supreme Court justices when they travel.

CNN producer Terry Frieden contributed to this report.
-------------------------------
« Last Edit: April 10, 2004, 12:30:53 AM by Munkii »

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13430
Scalia-defender of freedoms.
« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2004, 12:30:58 AM »
I guess they're afraid they'll make a mistake or contradict themselves. :confused:
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Munkii

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 552
Scalia-defender of freedoms.
« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2004, 12:34:45 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
I guess they're afraid they'll make a mistake or contradict themselves. :confused:


It doesn't really matter why they were doing it.  It's why aren't they allowed to?

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Scalia-defender of freedoms.
« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2004, 12:36:30 AM »
It's why they are allowed to.

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13430
Scalia-defender of freedoms.
« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2004, 12:36:59 AM »
Apparently they have the legal right or it would have long ago been challenged and defeated.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Scalia-defender of freedoms.
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2004, 12:38:41 AM »
When did this happen?

As far as I know, journalists can tape a public event. As far as I know this has been the case for a good long while.

Offline Munkii

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 552
Scalia-defender of freedoms.
« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2004, 12:40:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Apparently they have the legal right or it would have long ago been challenged and defeated.


Probably so, but it doesn't make very much sense.  There is no harm in taping it, he's not giving away national security secrets to 17 year olds, and he obviously doesn't mind the speeches in transcript.  Just doesn't want them on tape.  It seems like a pointless waste of time to have them erased.

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13430
Scalia-defender of freedoms.
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2004, 12:41:06 AM »
I agree with ya, just guessin'.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Scalia-defender of freedoms.
« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2004, 12:41:13 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Munkii
 It seems like a pointless waste of time to have them erased.


Seems like an unlawful request to me.

Offline Munkii

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 552
Scalia-defender of freedoms.
« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2004, 12:42:56 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Seems like an unlawful request to me.


I could agree with that.  Wonder if any of the other Justices do this?

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13430
Scalia-defender of freedoms.
« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2004, 12:44:17 AM »
Thje article says they do:

"Scalia often prohibits audio and video recordings of his speeches, but does allow the media to cover his non-judicial appearances. His policy is similar to that of his colleagues on the bench."
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Munkii

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 552
Scalia-defender of freedoms.
« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2004, 12:47:24 AM »
Must have skipped over that, didn't see it the first time through.

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Scalia-defender of freedoms.
« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2004, 12:48:19 AM »
I sometimes get the impression that the Supremes try to be all, like, mysterious and out there.

Offline bigsky

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 964
Scalia-defender of freedoms.
« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2004, 12:52:34 AM »
well if if bill of rights things like your right to keep and bear arms are conditional why not free speech? i agree, you dont have any absolute rights in this country. if some rich/powerful person dont agree with being subjected to public scrutny why should he?
"I am moist like bacon"

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13430
Scalia-defender of freedoms.
« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2004, 12:56:03 AM »
I think people have the legal right at least in some situations to restrict or prohibit their speech from being recorded. Think about a pro-football game, record one of those and ya go to the big house.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.