Do you find this disturbing?

[livendive 8]

Source

Quote

HATTIESBURG, Mississippi (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."

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Kennedy 0]

A speaker has every right to exclude press and recorders from speaking engagements. It happens on a regular basis. This just makes news because the press doesn't like Scalia, and how dare he have the gall to tell them to fuck off.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[livendive 8]

Quote

A speaker has every right to exclude press and recorders from speaking engagements. It happens on a regular basis. This just makes news because the press doesn't like Scalia, and how dare he have the gall to tell them to fuck off.

All in all, I think I agree with you, but it gets a bit fuzzier in this example. If the report is accurate, then Scalia did not provide an advance directive that his speech at the high school not be recorded. Given that, the reporters subsequently recorded it. My concern is how they could be forced to erase their recording after the fact. Who owns the tape, Scalia or the reporter? Under what authority could one order the destruction of such "property"?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rehmwa 2]

Disturbing that the reporter just wouldn't delete the tape in the first place out of politeness to the wishes of the speaker?

Or disturbing that they erased the tape which 'appears' to have been made due to a confusion or miscommunication of the protocall?

Quote

My concern is how they could be forced to erase their recording after the fact

As above, this also wouldn't be an issue if the reporter would respect the wishes of the speaker by erasing the tape on request.


Frankly, if any speaker does not wish pictures, recordings and the like, it should be contractual with the sponsoring organization, not the speaker - (i.e., the school should have been taking action to make sure the contract is fill rather than the speaker's "entourage")

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,146]

The only thing that makes it doubtful is the fact that he regularly requests that some types of recording not be made.

Otherwise, every time some public figure uttered something stupid, they'd be able to quote this precedent for having all recordings of their stupid utterance taped.

Makes me wonder if folks are going to begin having stenographers attend his speeches. Every time a line is drawn, someone thinks of an innovative way to cross it in a way that wasn't specifically forbidden.

And before anyone says that Scalia should never be quoted, bullshit. He's a public figure, in a job that requires he speak in public. He wants his opinion heard. He can't decide afterwards if it was worth recording.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[crzjp20 0]

i dont think that it is disturning at all. If the speaker did not want himself to be recorded then those wished should have been greanted. The reporters rights to freedom of press are not violated, they could still write about what they heard, but they would not have direct quotes.

anywasy

--------------------------------------------------
Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage.

[lawrocket 3]

Exactly. People don't often bitch about the unfaurness of Metallica charging them to see a concert.

Ever hear of bootlegging? Scalia is just as entitled to keeping his speeches private and unrecorded as Henry Rollins is with his spoken word readings.

No, I'm not distrubed in the slightest.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

He can't decide afterwards if it was worth recording.

Wendy W.

I don't know how this works, but is it likely that someone other than Scalia messed up in setting the expectations for this reporter? Who's responsible to make the sure protocol is completely communicated? Don't we have some public speakers here or even a reporter or two on this site?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,146]

Quote

is it likely that someone other than Scalia messed up in setting the expectations for this reporter?

That's entirely possible, and would make a difference. But it's a fairly fine line, because it's still way open to abuse. If it happens this once, well, then one of his folks messed up.

But I'll bet it'll still be claimed as a precedent in the future.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 1,644]

Who pays Scalia's salary? WE DO. Why does he get invited to give speeches? BECAUSE HE IS A PUBLIC SERVANT. No-one cares about the views of Antonin Scalia private citizen. They do care about the views of the Supremes.

I think the 4th estate has a duty accurately to report what any of the Supremes says in a public forum (a high school). And if that involves using technology, so be it.

For someone that likes to dish it out to others, Scalia is very thin skinned.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

If the report is accurate, then Scalia did not provide an advance directive that his speech at the high school not be recorded.

Laws vary by state, but in many it is illegal to record someone without their knowledge or express permission. You don't have to have been told not to, you have to get permission in advance.

EDIT:

What I find more disturbing is that my friend, an architect, was visiting Philadelphia and took picture of Independence Hall and the Benjamin Franklin bridge. He was detained by police and they confiscated his film.

[Tink1717 2]

Just more right wing hypocrisy. Do as I say not as I do, from the Taliban wannbe on the SCOTUS.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Who pays Scalia's salary? WE DO. Why does he get invited to give speeches? BECAUSE HE IS A PUBLIC SERVANT. No-one cares about the views of Antonin Scalia private citizen. They do care about the views of the Supremes.

For someone that likes to dish it out to others, Scalia is very thin skinned.

That's fine, John (big brother), you also noted that you made it through your PhD on scholarships and grants. Since the money came from somewhere (other citizens), therefore, it's ok to use technology to record everything you say, even if you don't wish it.

But if you want to hold public servants to a different standard, you know, my trash collector is a public servant. Let's record everything he says when he's out in public. Even if he asks people not to.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,426]

>Since the money came from somewhere (other citizens), therefore,
> it's ok to use technology to record everything you say, even if you
> don't wish it.

Uh, no. The courts are pretty clear on this. Anywhere you have an expectation of privacy (i.e. your bedroom, your car, your confessional, your doctor's office) you can not be taped without a court order. When you are talking in public you can be, provided you have not made it clear that you don't want to be taped.

>But if you want to hold public servants to a different standard, you
> know, my trash collector is a public servant. Let's record everything
> he says when he's out in public. Even if he asks people not to.

I don't think it has anything to do with being a public servant. If I give a talk at PIA, and someone tapes it, well, my fault for not saying they can't _before_ the talk.

[rehmwa 2]

BV - I entirely agree with your statement in that post (and, uh yes, it was written tongue in cheek, next time I'll put some icon in there to accept the hyperbolic intent of the mockery such as this one ). If you run back the replies string, it's obvious Kallend doesn't think that public servants 'should' have the right to request no recordings.

As far as the judge forgetting to inform the crowd. That's right, it's his tough luck. However, courtesy by the reporter would have made this a non-issue regardless of the written law. And the articles also doesn't say the judge personally went in and took the tape recorder, someone on the security staff did.

(A judge knowledgable in the law might have done the right thing here if he saw what was happening and stated that the reporter had a right to that tape since he didn't announce at the start his wishes.

Then he could announce at that time he didn't want further recording and requested the reporter to honor that wish in spirit by erasing the first part too.

But I don't even know if the judge knew about the event at all.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

In O'Connor v. Ortega, 107 S.Ct. 1492 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that public employees may have a legitimate expectation of privacy at their place of employment and that they do not lose their fourth amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures merely because they work for the government.

Not directly related, but close.

[talon1206 0]

Quote

A speaker has every right to exclude press and recorders from speaking engagements. It happens on a regular basis. This just makes news because the press doesn't like Scalia, and how dare he have the gall to tell them to fuck off.

Amen to that brother

"Pilots without Maintainers are just pedestrians with cool jackets and sunglasses"

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

Who pays Scalia's salary? WE DO. Why does he get invited to give speeches? BECAUSE HE IS A PUBLIC SERVANT. No-one cares about the views of Antonin Scalia private citizen. They do care about the views of the Supremes.

For someone that likes to dish it out to others, Scalia is very thin skinned.

That's fine, John (big brother), you also noted that you made it through your PhD on scholarships and grants. Since the money came from somewhere (other citizens), therefore, it's ok to use technology to record everything you say, even if you don't wish it.

Quote

Students record my classes all the time. Doesn't bother me.

But if you want to hold public servants to a different standard, you know, my trash collector is a public servant. Let's record everything he says when he's out in public. Even if he asks people not to.

If he made a speech about trash in a public forum, describing things he learned while on the public payroll, then yes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

BV - I entirely agree with your statement in that post (and, uh yes, it was written tongue in cheek, next time I'll put some icon in there to accept the hyperbolic intent of the mockery such as this one ). If you run back the replies string, it's obvious Kallend doesn't think that public servants 'should' have the right to request no recordings.

Correct! A public servant on the public payroll giving a speech in a public forum on a topic of public interest and directly related to his employment (the Constitution) is legitimate news item, and reporters should be able to report it to that person's employers (the people) anyhow they like.

Scalia works for the citizens, not vice versa.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

reporters should be able to report it to that person's employers (the people) anyhow they like.

It's never been said that the reporters cannot report it however they like.

It's a matter that people cannot record it however they like.

I can tell all I want about that Metallica concert I went to. I can report set lists, the lyrics, and even describe how Kirk Hammet fretted the notes on his solos. But I sure cannot record it on a tape and pass it to my buddies.

See the difference?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

John - my point on the two notes were that the example "the speaker didn't want to be recorded" the fact that you don't mind is not on topic.

So to extend your statement that public servants should not have the right to not be recorded for the info of their bosses. What about the private sector - are you consistent? Should we be constantly recorded during our work day and while traveling on business and while on sales calls, or service calls, etc? (regardless of the employee's requests not to be)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,426]

>Should we be constantly recorded during our work day and while
> traveling on business and while on sales calls, or service calls, etc?
> (regardless of the employee's requests not to be)

Many are. Ever call a support number and hear "your call may be recorded for training purposes?" ATC, police, EMS, pilots - all have their conversations recorded. Shuttle van drivers often have their driving recorded by "crash cameras" so they can better win lawsuits. People speaking at public events are often recorded so reporters can do better stories on them.

Don't like it? Don't take the job, don't speak in public, don't call support hotlines.

[rehmwa 2]

So now you agree with John?

or did you before and I just missed it?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,426]

>So now you agree with John?

I'm not quite sure what John's position is. There are places (cars, personal phone calls, your house) where you have an expectation of privacy, and it is illegal to record anything there. In public you don't have the same rights. If you give a speech on a street corner, and a tourist with a camcorder tapes it, you have no right to confiscate the tape - unless he agrees beforehand not to tape it.

[Paige 0]

Agreed! I think that bi-partisan stuff is gettin out of control

Tunnel Pink Mafia Delegate
www.TunnelPinkMafia.com