Two reporters ordered to erase tapes while covering Scalia speech

Charleston Gazette ^ | 4/07/04 | DENISE GRONES

[Libloather]

Two reporters ordered to erase tapes while covering Scalia speech
By DENISE GRONES
Associated Press Writer

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 snatched 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.

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.''

------
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

[Libloather]

...after the officer snatched the device from her hands.

Sometimes, Big Media must be forced to learn...

[Support Free Republic]

[DoughtyOne]

If the SOB doesn't want his words taped, I'd suggest he not go to public places to make speaches, especially ones my tax dollars go to finance.

What the hell is this all about?

[Arkinsaw]

Sometimes, Big Media must be forced to learn...

Learn that those in power can prevent freedom of the press in a public place?

I love Scalia dearly (see my homepage) but he above all should know that agents of the government can't walk up and seize people's private property on a whim, without due process and without a warrant. Very disturbing.

[patton]

Irony.

He prosletizes free speach, while siezing the notes of the press.

Goerbbells -"Repeat it often enough, and it becomes truth..."

[Cboldt]

I'm pretty sure the speeches are not part of his job as Justice of the SC, i.e., not on the taxpayers dime.

Lots of events in "public" places are forbidden to be recorded, generally performances. Try recording the presentation by a motivational speaker, or a movie, or a concert.

I don't think Scalia's setting of conditions is out of line, except the conditions should be clearly expresed to attendees (in the printed program, for example).

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

I'm pretty sure the speeches are not part of his job as Justice of the SC, i.e., not on the taxpayers dime.

Lots of events in "public" places are forbidden to be recorded, generally performances. Try recording the presentation by a motivational speaker, or a movie, or a concert.

I don't think Scalia's setting of conditions is out of line, except the conditions should be clearly expresed to attendees (in the printed program, for example).

6 posted on 04/07/2004 6:01:42 PM PDT by Cboldt


If this were a paid lecture in a room that had been hired, I'd certainly back your premise.  This is a high school auditorium with children and parents present.

As for the other persons or types of performances you mentioned, I understand the premise and approve.  To my way of thinking, this is quite different.

If Scalia wishes to go on a paid lecture circuit, produce a tape or video series or write a book, he should have every right to control how those resources are parceled out.  When he visits a school to make a public presentation, I stridently disagree with the juvenile behavior that was exhibited at this event by him and his staff.

I'm pretty sure the speeches are not part of his job as Justice of the SC, i.e., not on the taxpayers dime.

Lots of events in "public" places are forbidden to be recorded, generally performances. Try recording the presentation by a motivational speaker, or a movie, or a concert.

I don't think Scalia's setting of conditions is out of line, except the conditions should be clearly expresed to attendees (in the printed program, for example).

[hedgetrimmer]

If it was a PTA meeting, the PTA and speakers may not have the meetings recorded. In the PTA rules for California, I learned that the business part of the meeting is never allowed to be recorded and most of the time guest speakers are not allowed to be recorded either.

In special cases, if the speaker speaks after the meeting is adjourned, then recording of the speaker is allowed if the speaker allows it.

[ApplegateRanch]

What all media needs to learn is one open, one concealed.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

They definitely need to bring back the bounty on the beaver!

[eno_]

Many PDAs have mics with excellent automatic gain control. Almost all laptops have mics. The reporters' digital recorders would work almost as well concealed in a picket. These rules are only an invitation for mischief.

I wonder what authority a cop has to sieze the recorders. If you want rules like that, you should have to pay for the means to enforce them.

[familyofman]

The man is seriously off his meds. If this type of behavior is his idea of what 'protecting the constitution' is about - he needs to be impeached (for lunacy, if nothing else).

[hedgetrimmer]

I'm just repeating the rules as I was told them. If the meeting was a meeting of a private organization,like a PTA it isn't really a public forum and they have an established right to refuse people to record their meetings.

There a constitutional ammendment that has to do with the right of association, and a private club has the right to keep its meetings private, if they like.

Even school board meetings do not allow you to record the meetings, you are only allowed to take notes.

In this era of no rule of law, I can see why people might think its ok to hide a tape recorder and record meetings they are asked not to. It is another symptom of the degeneration of the civility of our society and respect for its rules.

[hedgetrimmer]

You have no idea if he was speaking for a private group like a PTA or what because the article doesn't say so.

Many school boards do not allow recording of their meetings and no one objects to that. Please find out who sponsored the meeting. Just because it was at a school doesn't mean it was run by the government or other public organization, like I said, it could have been a parents organization, or a PTA which are private clubs believe it or not.

[eno_]

A truly private organization can organize as they please. Private organizations make and enforce their own rules.

But what is the basis for a law enforcement officer to get involved?

I record ALL my interactions with government officals and law enforcement. I've beaten speeding tickets that way.

[henderson field]

Josef Goerbels (?sp?) said "Public opinion is like an organ, which I play according to my needs."

[henderson field]

This guy is not Elvis Presley, he's a public employee. I pay his salary, wherever he goes, 24 hours a day. A trick like this shows how unclear he is about the American Constituion. I'm disappointed.

[monkeyshine]

i I don't think Scalia's setting of conditions is out of line, except the conditions should be clearly expresed to attendees (in the printed program, for example).

I agree but it sure is interesting, an expectation of privacy. Seems to be reversing the left-right roles here...

[Cboldt]

This guy is not Elvis Presley, he's a public employee. I pay his salary, wherever he goes, 24 hours a day. A trick like this shows how unclear he is about the American Constituion. I'm disappointed.

Hmmm. Justices commonly are awarded honoraria for speaking outside of their assigned work duties (hearing, deciding and reporting cases).

Ginsberg donates honorarium for speach
U of Illinois Occasions for offering Honorarium Specifically mentions Supreme Court Justicies (probably meaning state) judging moot court competitions

The point being simply that the Justices have lives outside of their official duties, and not 100% of what they do is necessarily amenable to recording. As for reporting on public meetings, nobody was denied the ability to report. Also, as to confiscation of property, none was confiscated.

While the actions are bad PR, they don't strike me as "urgently objectionable." There are a number of reasons that he may object to being recorded while he is giving a speech.

I appear to be in the minority with that view, and most here are expressing that the public has a right to record any speech he gives. Good luck finding that in the Constitution.

[RonF]

What I'm trying to figure out is where a Federal marshal gets the authority to take someone's private property from them to keep them from recording a public speech. What Federal law were they enforcing?