Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Munkii 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.
-------------------------------
-
I guess they're afraid they'll make a mistake or contradict themselves. :confused:
-
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?
-
It's why they are allowed to.
-
Apparently they have the legal right or it would have long ago been challenged and defeated.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I agree with ya, just guessin'.
-
Originally posted by Munkii
It seems like a pointless waste of time to have them erased.
Seems like an unlawful request to me.
-
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?
-
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."
-
Must have skipped over that, didn't see it the first time through.
-
I sometimes get the impression that the Supremes try to be all, like, mysterious and out there.
-
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 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.
-
They send you to jail for that?
yegads.
But yeah... Rock bands don't let people record their shows...
They seem to have that right.
Yet, you sometimes see snippets of their performances on the 11:00 news.
Uhm... fuggit.
I have no idea what the laws are.
-
Conditional rights have always applied, especially to free speech. I just don't see where this is a case. NFL is not a public forum, it is a private organization, as are rock concerts. You pay to get into them, or watch them on TV. (Through advertisements and commercial time) A public speech is a completely different manner.
-
often recordings are made of people without there consent or knowledge.
a couple of instances that come to mind are when tapes from the back of patrol cars or jail visiting rooms are used as evidence. the reason given is usually that the people didn't or shouldn't have had "a reasonable expectation of privacy", therefore since they had no reasonable expectation that these conversations would be private, the police have no need for a warrant, permission, or even notification that the recording is being made.
this would seem a similar situation, since a person giving a public speech shouldn't reasonably expect his words to be private. in fact since this recording is being made for general use and not as evidence in court, the right to record it should be even more lenient.
this has nothing in common with recording concerts or sporting events, since it's a private event, when buy a ticket and there is a contract that goes with it, most state that recordings or sometimes even still photos are not allowed.
IMO, they overstepped their authority, and destroyed private property. you'd think a supreme court justice would know better.
of course he probably also knows there could never be a ruling on it, since all they would have to do is appeal until it hit the supreme court, at which time all of the justices would have to excuse themselves since they would all have an interest in the case since it deals with their behavior on restricting recordings.
-
Update...
Scalia said he doesn't allow these events to be recorded by cameras and televised, but he does allow them to be covered by the print media. He apologized, and said he too would be outraged at the erasing of the journalist's tapes. He says he is changing his policy to explicitely allow them to be recorded on tape by the print media.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Update...
Scalia said he doesn't allow these events to be recorded by cameras and televised, but he does allow them to be covered by the print media. He apologized, and said he too would be outraged at the erasing of the journalist's tapes. He says he is changing his policy to explicitely allow them to be recorded on tape by the print media.
Well that at least makes a little more sense.
-
Can you go to a rock concert and legally make a recording? Can you go to a comedy show and legally make a recording? How are those situations any different from someone giving a speech?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Can you go to a rock concert and legally make a recording? Can you go to a comedy show and legally make a recording? How are those situations any different from someone giving a speech?
Boosh is a crimanal!!!
-
I sincerely don't know at all but I suspect it has something to do with the fact that Scalia didn't sell tickets to a private "performance" and the fact that journalists regularly record private performances anyways.
At concerts, you will know them by their "press" tags. At a Scalia show, they will be the ones in the front moshing.
-
And as usual, Grun is the one jumping on stage, diving off it, and is clueless to the fact that he parted the sea like moses - now requireing extensive stitching.
-
Zooooooo!
-
You were not booing, right? Just checking! :)
-
Can you go to a rock concert and legally make a recording? Can you go to a comedy show and legally make a recording? How are those situations any different from someone giving a speech?
at any of the events you listed you buy a ticket or pay admission. this is a type of contracts and under that you can set conditions, if they don't want to allow recording or photos they can set that as a condition.
a public official, making a speech at a public event, on publicly owned property is public, and you have no reason to expect privacy.
I do think his position on the update is reasonable. he agreed that he thinks erasing the tape was wrong, just a mistake, an officer who didn't completely understand his instruction.
I also think him not wanting video taken is also reasonable. the types of decisions justices are forced to make naturally make them enemies. and having video of them show up all the time would make them more recognizable. I think the fact that most of us wouldn't recognize them if they sat down next to us at a restaurant is probably a good thing.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
I also think him not wanting video taken is also reasonable. the types of decisions justices are forced to make naturally make them enemies. and having video of them show up all the time would make them more recognizable. I think the fact that most of us wouldn't recognize them if they sat down next to us at a restaurant is probably a good thing.
how hard can they be not to recognize thru these flimsy disguises?!?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/150_1081832268_supremeclowns.jpg)
:D
-
Twisted. :aok
-
Krusty the Clown lives and is doing well it would seem.
-
Originally posted by Munkii
Conditional rights have always applied, especially to free speech. I just don't see where this is a case. NFL is not a public forum, it is a private organization, as are rock concerts. You pay to get into them, or watch them on TV. (Through advertisements and commercial time) A public speech is a completely different manner.
Officials at Presbyterian Christian High School in Hattiesburg did not announce the policy before Scalia's Wednesday appearance there.
It is just a wild guess, but I think Presbyterian Christian High School might be a private school. Therefore a speech given at a private school might be construed as private rather than public speech allowing limits to be applied as to the reporting of that private speech.
If Scalia were in the town square, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but in a private setting, as this could be considered to be.....
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It is just a wild guess, but I think Presbyterian Christian High School might be a private school. Therefore a speech given at a private school might be construed as private rather than public speech allowing limits to be applied as to the reporting of that private speech.
If Scalia were in the town square, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but in a private setting, as this could be considered to be.....
I quoted it as a private school in the original message. My beef is with the fact that there were members of the press there, they obviously where allowed, but their recordings were erased. Scalia admits that it was wrong. I don't have a problem with him not allowing the video press there. That would just turn a good speech for high school students into a media frenzy. I actually agree with his policy in this light, unless of course it was in the town square, then it is fair game.