Scalia vs Reporters

[MTAtech]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia invited two reporters to attend his speech to a high school crowd in Mississippi. However, he apparently ordering a U.S. deputy marshal to confiscate and erase recordings made by the two reporters.

Besides depriving the reporters of property without due process, Scalia's move appears to violate 1st Amendment rights as well as a 1980 privacy protection law that specifically defines protections for journalists who seek to disseminate information to the public.


Full Story

[Theophylact]

Last year, he barred recorders and cameras from a speech he gave about the First Amendment.

[MTAtech]

Although hypocritical, he has the right to make that rule for private speeches (that I assume he is paid.)

However, it is beyond the US Marshall's job to enforce his rule.

[osprey4]

It's consistent with his belief in the need for separation of public opinion and the judiciary, not a first amendment issue. If you do some reading about his judicial philosophy (as a textualist), you'll understand why he does this. Obviously, there are times all of us disagree with specific justices, but Scalia is at least as consistent as the rest of them.

[MTAtech]

However, the US Marshalls shouldn't be breaking the
Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which, protects journalists from being required to turn over to law enforcement any work product and documentary materials, including sources, before it is disseminated to the public. Work product includes materials that were created to convey a message. This definition includes notes, drafts and film. Documentary material includes recorded content that may be interpreted in a finished product, such as video, audio and digital records.

[MegalosSkylaki]

"Although hypocritical, he has the right to make that rule for private speeches (that I assume he is paid.)" --MTAtech

What !

SC Justices giving speeches for money?

So a big "honororium" can translate into a favorable decision ?

That's how Congress has been bought out...err, well one of the ways.

I would think a SC Justice is sufficiently a "public figure" that he could be quoted verbatim. What he says about law would be newsworthy. If he doesn't like that, don't give speeches.

This suX
DOOOOG

[Theophylact]

Plans to apologize to American reporter:

By Nikki Maute
The Hattiesburg American

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in a letter to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press he will revise his policy on allowing members of the print media to tape his public speeches.

Scalia denied ordering a U.S. Marshal to confiscate recordings made by a reporters for the Hattiesburg American and the Associated Press at a speech in Hattiesburg on Wednesday.

"You are correct that the action was not taken at my direction; I was as upset as you were," Scalia wrote in a letter dated Friday, two days after he spoke at William Carey College and Presbyterian Christian High School.

Scalia was midway through his presentation at the high school when Denise Grones from The Associated Press and the Hattiesburg American’s Antoinette Konz were ordered to turn over recordings of the speech to U.S. Marshal Melanie Rube. Both reporters tried to refuse, but ultimately complied with the order when pressed by Rube.

Scalia said he has written to the reporters involved apologizing for the actions.

Scalia said he doesn’t direct the actions of the U.S. Marshals Service, but will tell them he would prefer they do not confiscate recordings.