Friday, April 9. 2004
What is Scalia afraid of?
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ordered on Wednesday that reporters' recordings of his speech in Hattiesburg, MS be erased.
There was no indication before the speech that recording devices were prohibited. The seziure of the recordings is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Scalia often bars the recording of his speeches, including a speech later that afternoon at William Carey College. He also barred recordings of his speech some time ago at an award ceremony...where he received an award for his support of the First Amendment.
Scalia, a Republican apointee, is known as a strict Constitutional literalist. Why doesn't he want his words recorded?
There was no indication before the speech that recording devices were prohibited. The seziure of the recordings is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Scalia often bars the recording of his speeches, including a speech later that afternoon at William Carey College. He also barred recordings of his speech some time ago at an award ceremony...where he received an award for his support of the First Amendment.
Scalia, a Republican apointee, is known as a strict Constitutional literalist. Why doesn't he want his words recorded?
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I sent this link to a list I'm on and asked if anyone knew what his justification was. I got the following response--the ACLU is defending it, of all people:
http://www.loper.org/~george/trends/2003/Mar/937.html
"[ACLU President Nadine] Strossen said Scalia's rule
against being taped
is an understandable one that is based on his concern
that his speeches
meant for live audiences 'don't translate to a
different medium.'"
http://www.loper.org/~george/trends/2003/Mar/937.html
"[ACLU President Nadine] Strossen said Scalia's rule
against being taped
is an understandable one that is based on his concern
that his speeches
meant for live audiences 'don't translate to a
different medium.'"
It's his right...but there's a reason we archive the words and writings of Supreme Court Justices. Their decisions will affect policy and law for decades, maybe centuries, and we need to understand where they are coming from when interpreting their decisions.
Scalia seems to want to be the 'stealth judge'.
That's beside the point that if you DON'T state that you don't allow recording, it's illegal to erase the recording after the fact.
Scalia seems to want to be the 'stealth judge'.
That's beside the point that if you DON'T state that you don't allow recording, it's illegal to erase the recording after the fact.
Update: he apologized:
http://www.rcfp.org/news/releases/view.cgi?2004_04_12_scaliare.txt
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press received a letter today from Justice Antonin Scalia in response to its April 8 letter regarding a U.S. Marshal's seizure and erasure of two reporters' audio recorders during a speech the Justice gave last week at a Hattiesburg, Miss., high school.
In a letter addressed to Reporters Committee Executive Director Lucy Dalglish, Justice Scalia said he did not direct or approve of the marshal's actions April 7 at Presbyterian Christian School: "You were correct that the action was not taken at my direction; I was as upset as you were. I have written to the reporters involved, extending my apology."
For what it's worth.
http://www.rcfp.org/news/releases/view.cgi?2004_04_12_scaliare.txt
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press received a letter today from Justice Antonin Scalia in response to its April 8 letter regarding a U.S. Marshal's seizure and erasure of two reporters' audio recorders during a speech the Justice gave last week at a Hattiesburg, Miss., high school.
In a letter addressed to Reporters Committee Executive Director Lucy Dalglish, Justice Scalia said he did not direct or approve of the marshal's actions April 7 at Presbyterian Christian School: "You were correct that the action was not taken at my direction; I was as upset as you were. I have written to the reporters involved, extending my apology."
For what it's worth.