His apology doesn't have a damn thing to do with the piss'n & moun'n about his position.(see T.L.'s reply) So my question still stands as usual unanswered by anyone.

So public officials making public speeches on public property should be free from press coverage? Outstanding!

His apology doesn't have a damn thing to do with the piss'n & moun'n about his position.(see T.L.'s reply) So my question still stands as usual unanswered by anyone. </font>[/QUOTE]It's difficult to tell by the article if this was a school function or a public (after hours) speech. But that is really besides the point as Scalia has pulled this same stunt at other venues as well. The press covering a public figure is far different then you coming on my propery as you say and doing whatever you want. So your question is irrelevant.

Even a public speech can limit the reporters and camera crews if it's made on private property. If Clinton's speeches that he makes at various schools were open to the media, there wouldn't be much reason to pay him $200K a pop, would there?

The media is routinely kept out of courtrooms, jailhouses, schools, private venues, etc. Just because you've got a camera or microphone doesn't give you carte blanche to go where you please and record what you please.

You may note no media recording devices are allowed inside the Supreme Court. Why do you think we get all those artists' drawings of the hearings?

Erm... to note: before I get too entrenched here defending the dumbest "textualist" in history, I just want to let you know I am no fan of Antonin Scalia.

[ 04-13-2004, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I think that is the whole point TL, it doesn't matter if you love or hate him, this story just doesn't smack of any wrong doing on his part.

Where did I ever accuse him of wrongdoing? I just feel his policy is wrongheaded and the incident's fallout has atleast got him to rethink his policy.

Well, fair enough Rokenn. But, I think if you go recheck the article you'll find out that his policy is simple: he tells you ahead of time when you can't have a recording device. At the first event, he had not informed anyone, and it was therefore inappropriate for the agents to take the recordings.

Well, I'd say the title of the thread seems to imply a strike on his part against Freedom Of The Press which clearly wasn't evidenced by the story, in particular, or the practice, in general.

You might think his action was wrongheaded, but that doesn't mean it violated the Freedom of the Press in any way... not even it's spirit.

It did cause him to rethink his policy, but I certainly hope the change was made because of a true desire that he should allow coverage and not because of the publicity involved, because it has caused him to treat the different media outlets differently. Now the print media will be allowed to tape his appearances at functions, but he'll still deny broadcast media access? Seems to me he was in better shape before, at least he was being fair.

[ 04-13-2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Is it that he doesn't want his image recorded but has no problem with audio recordings? If that's the case, it wouldn't be inconsistent - some people are camera shy...

Actually, I think it's that he doesn't want off-the-cuff comments made at numerous speeches being turned against him the next time he writes a judicial opinion. The justices really try to hold themselves aloof from the media, you know. They try to maintain an appearance and aura of sequestered legal reflection and reasoning largely unaffected by the ebb and flow of mass media.

Of course, they make gaffs. Like when S.D. O'Connor mentioned that if Gore won, she wouldn't be able to retire when she wanted (because she can't trust a Democrat to replace her). ;)