Reporters told to erase audio recordings of Scalia speech to high school students

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.

Scalia gave two speeches Wednesday in Hattiesburg, one at Presbyterian Christian High School and the other at William Carey College. The recording-device warning was made before the college speech.

At a reception following Scalia's speech at William Carey, the justice told television reporters from Hattiesburg station WDAM-TV to leave. A member of his entourage also told newspaper photographers they could not take pictures, but a college official reversed the order after non-media guests started snapping photos.

William Carey spokeswoman Jeanna Graves later sent an apology to the media.

"I specifically asked for protocol and was told that the media would have access to Justice Scalia during the reception," Graves wrote in an e-mail. She said she was "embarrassed and angry" over the incident.

Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said that it is up to Scalia and his staff to set guidelines for coverage of his events.

"It's standard that his speeches are not televised," she said.

Last year, Scalia was criticized for refusing to allow television and radio coverage of an event in Ohio in which he received an award for supporting free speech.

Scalia, who was appointed to the bench by President Reagan in 1986, told students that the Constitution's true meaning must always be protected.

"The Constitution of the United States is extraordinary and amazing. People just don't revere it like they used to," Scalia told a full auditorium of high school students, officials, religious leaders.

He said he spends most of his time thinking about the Constitution, calling it "a brilliant piece of work."

Scalia has said time and time again that only the plain language of the constitution should be heeded, and that judicial interpretation of the meaning or intent of that language is wrong. It's a very short document, even including the amendments. If he spends most of his time thinking about it, then he is either wrong in his textualist approach or he is a very.... slow.... reader. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">I am not sure what the big deal is. So he doesn't want to be recorded, or taped. This does not violate free speech as he is the one doing the talking and should be able to choose if he wants his speeches recorded. I think denying someone access to media is a violation of free speech, not denying the media access to his speech. Is it freedom of speech or freedom of the press to do what they want? The press can still say what they want, they just will not be able to back up what they say as absolute truth. Doesn't the man have the right to privacy?</font>

[ 04-12-2004, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Well, Pritchke, public figures sort of give up their right to privacy. It's just part of being a public figure in this country.

Last time I went to a concert they threw a guy out on his ear because he had a tape recorder, and he'd paid to be there. If he bought the cheapest ticket, like I did, he was out $75. ;)

[ 04-12-2004, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Before anyone points out that recording their music would be illegal, I'll have to say they didn't allow cameras either. They were most definately public figures, but the right to do certain things is based on the venue, eh? ;)

I'd say Scalia does it just to keep from being annoyed by the media everywhere he goes. Judges are not known to be avid fans of the media, who'd rather ruin a trial if they can ("break" a story about a trial and you sometimes "break" the judicial system, too -- contamination of jury pool, etc.). I'd bet that the 9 SCOTUS judges hate the media even more, because now they are judges trying to maintain decorum AND they are famous.

Personally, in my cases where the media was involved, I said nothing I didn't have to. I denied access to my clients and refused to respond to snipes made in the media by the other side. Why bother? -- they will only misquote me anyway.

[ 04-12-2004, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

OFF TOPIC!

Is it just me or does SCOTUS sound... scrotum-esque?

SORRY FOR THE INTERUPTION.... EVERYONE PLEASE JUST MOVE ALONG.....

Dirty Monkey [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Maybe they could get Scalia to change it opinion if they started to wildly mis-quote him after his speeches [img]smile.gif[/img]


"Then in his speech Justice Scalia stated his support for repealing the 2nd, 4th and 6th amendments to the delight of the crowd"

Especially when you are giving a public speech in a public space!

Ah, but he agreed to give the speech only under certain conditions. That is completely within his rights, and the school is completely within it's rights to enforce the no tape rule and would seem to be, in fact, legally bound by their agreement with the Justice. Timber may speak more to that point, but it seems to me that they would be because they agreed to his terms.

*Only* the title of this thread makes it appear to be an interesting story. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 04-12-2004, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Maybe they could get Scalia to change it opinion if they started to wildly mis-quote him after his speeches [img]smile.gif[/img]


"Then in his speech Justice Scalia stated his support for repealing the 2nd, 4th and 6th amendments to the delight of the crowd" </font>[/QUOTE]That's misquoting?

I suppose you're right there.
I guess that if I was a reporter there, I probably wouldn't have noted anything about the speech and just reported on the tape erasing instead - and then never bothered to turn up to one of his public appearances again...

;)

Today's NYTimes:

Scalia Apologizes for Seizure of Recordings
By ADAM LIPTAK

Published: April 13, 2004


Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court has apologized to two Mississippi reporters who were required to erase recordings of a speech he gave at a high school there on Wednesday.

The reporters, for The Associated Press and a local newspaper, had been told by a deputy federal marshal to destroy the recordings at the end of a half-hour speech by the justice at the Presbyterian Christian High School in Hattiesburg.

The marshal cited the justice's standing policy prohibiting the recording of his remarks. The policy had not been announced at the high school.

On Friday, Justice Scalia wrote the reporters to apologize, but his letters had not yet arrived on Monday, the two news organizations said, and the Supreme Court declined to release them.

Justice Scalia referred to the apologies in a separate letter mailed on Friday to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which had protested the marshal's actions. The committee released the letter on Monday.

Calling the organization's concern "well justified," the justice wrote: "You are correct that the action was not taken at my direction. I was as upset as you were."

One of the reporters, Antoinette Konz of The Hattiesburg American, expressed appreciation for the apology. She said she was disturbed that her tape was confiscated. It was returned to her only after she promised to erase the justice's speech from it.

"I think it's very honorable of him," she said. "I accept his apology. I am still upset about the entire incident."

Justice Scalia said in the letter to the Reporters Committee that the controversy had caused him to revise his policy "so as to permit recording for use of the print media" to "promote accurate reporting." He suggested that he had been misquoted in some accounts as saying "people just don't revere" the Constitution "like they used to." But the letter did not set out his version of what he said, and a court spokesman declined to comment.

Justice Scalia indicated he would continue to ban the recording of his speeches by the broadcast press.

"The electronic media have in the past respected my First Amendment right not to speak on radio or television when I do not wish to do so," he wrote, "and I am sure that courtesy will continue."

Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio-Television News Directors Association, objected to that distinction in a letter to Justice Scalia yesterday. "There is no legal basis for such discrimination," she wrote. "To exclude television cameras and audio recording is the equivalent of taking away pencil and paper from print reporters."

Frank Fisher, Mississippi bureau chief for The Associated Press, said the apparent apology to its reporter, Denise Grones, represented progress. But he, too, noted discomfort at the varying treatment of the broadcast press.

"The First Amendment covers all of us," he said.

In his letter, Justice Scalia said he did not have the power to "direct security personnel not to confiscate recordings."

"Security personnel, both those of the institutions at which I speak, and the United States marshals, do not operate at my direction," he wrote, "but I shall certainly express that as my preference."

Justice Scalia made an argeement with the powers that OWN the Property he was speaking AT. In this case it was the the school board, the school board has the right to decide what it will and will not allow on it property. IF anybody has any doubt of this just try to go to a local school and do what you want, with your freedom of expression, then when the school board has you arrested and your sitting in the local jail you can ponder your freedom. you can tell the Judge you face all about your freedom as he slams the gavel down and says guilty.

If any of you think this is wrong then send me your address and if I'm in your town I'll come by and do what I want on your property and you can't do a damn thing to stop me because you've think it is wrong for property owners to decide what goes on on their property. ARE you willing to apply the same standards to yourself as you want to apply to others? I'm willing to bet you're not!

Fact is this is just piss'n moun'n cause people want to piss & moun, about those they disagree politicly with.

Yup I guess that is why he apologized for the incident today....

I guess his apology, made for the actions of others, not to mention his relinqeshing of certain personal freedoms, for the sake of clarity, changes the title of this thread from sarcasm to praise? [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

I think Scalia's main concern is that in exercising freedom of the press we don't lose sight of the fact that we should be able to be free *from* the press if we so desire.

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). ;)

No, I don't believe his being camera shy is the problem. [img]smile.gif[/img]

According to the apology story, he's now allowing the print media to tape his speaches, so he won't be misquoted by them as he has been previously. It seems to me that is, at best, a back-handed concession to them. "You've screwed it up my quotes before, so start taping me because your memory sucks." [img]smile.gif[/img]

Then regarding the broadcast media he says they have always honored his request not to be taped when he doesn't wish to be, and he's sure that co-operation will continue. But the broadcast media is crying foul because he's allowing a level of access to the print media he's denying to them. I don't think images are the problem, but the broadcast media still won't be allowed to even play the audio when the print media could print any thing from a partial sentance snippit to a full transcript.

I can't say I blame them.

[ 04-13-2004, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Yeah I'd hate to seem him get tripped up by an off-the-cuff remark caught on tape. It would be so unlike the appearance of a major conflict of interest generated by him not recusing himself from ruling on Cheney's engery files after going duck hunting with Mr Cheney :rolleyes: [img]smile.gif[/img]

Transcriping can still lead to mis-quotes, see the recent bruhaha regarding the Kerry mis-quote regarding foriegn leaders supporting him for president. At least with an audio record you can go back and verify what was really said, as was done in the case of the Kerry quote. With no recording it becomes a he said, she said. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Oh well, at the end of the day, he's free to set whatever rules he likes - just as the media is free to ignore him if they choose.

And of course, he can legitimately argue that 'print' journalists will only record him for personal rather than public use, using their tape recorders as 'note-pads' rather than scribble furiously as old-timers did before them and that therefore he is merely trying to be accomodating.

It seems clear that he has an issue with <u>broadcasting his likeness and voice</u> rather than recording in itself.

[ 04-13-2004, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

I knew the duck hunting thing would come up. Knowing and being friends with a party is not the same as having a personal interest in the outcome -- which is the legal test. If going out to lunch with or liking an attorney is a conflict problem for a judge, my wife would have to quit her job as a prosecutor after 1 month. Being friends does not preclude impartiality.

But, I think his taste in friends speaks volumes. ;)

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming -- which I think includes pretending there is a difference between print and broadcast media companies. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Let's try to be mindful that all our base are belong to 3 or 4 big companies that get to feed us info from about 5 different directions. ;)