Scalia once again demonstrates his commitment to Freedom of the Press.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: Well, Pritchke, public figures sort of give up their right to privacy. It's just part of being a public figure in this country.

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

[Ronn_Bman]

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 ]

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

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" [/QUOTE]That's misquoting?

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: 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]

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...

[Ronn_Bman]

[Timber Loftis]

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."

[John D Harris]

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.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by John D Harris: 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....

[Ronn_Bman]

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]

[Timber Loftis]

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.