PDA

View Full Version : Scalia's Tape Tactics at Issue




IJ Reilly
Apr 9, 2004, 10:34 AM
Experts question legal basis for confiscation -- apparently on justice's orders -- of recordings.

By David G. Savage Times Staff Writer

April 9, 2004

WASHINGTON — First Amendment experts on Thursday questioned the legal basis for a deputy U.S. marshal — apparently acting on the orders of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — to confiscate and erase recordings made by two reporters invited to hear the justice speak at a high school gym.

The experts questioned not only Scalia's practice of barring recordings of remarks made in public, but also whether the seizure may have violated a federal law intended to shield journalists from having notes or records confiscated by officials.

"I don't think any public official — and I don't care whether you are a Supreme Court justice or the president of the United States — has a right to speak in public and then say, 'You can't record what I have said,' " said Burt Neuborne, a law professor at New York University and former legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "A marshal is there for security, not to censor what a justice has said."

Alone among the justices, Scalia forbids television cameras when he speaks in public, and he usually tries to clear the room of reporters. He strictly insists, usually in advance, that his words not be recorded.

On Wednesday afternoon, however, no warning of his rule was given to event hosts or reporters when Scalia spoke at Presbyterian Christian High School in Hattiesburg, Miss.

"This was our first effort at having a national speaker on campus. We assumed the public and reporters would want to be here," said Barrett Mosbacker, the headmaster.

Antoinette Konz, a school reporter for the Hattiesburg American, said she received a written invitation to cover the event. "They called back to make sure we would be there Wednesday," she recalled. "And when we arrived, they gave us a place to sit in the front row."

Soon after Scalia entered the gym, a marshal told a TV reporter to stop recording. The justice spoke to the assembly of students, faculty and parents about the importance of the Constitution.

The Constitution protects the rights of all, he said, according to a reporter's account. It is a "brilliant piece of work…. People just don't revere it like they used to," he said.

Near the end of the talk, Deputy U.S. Marshal Melanie Rube, who works in the Hattiesburg area, confronted two reporters who were recording Scalia's comments.

"She came up and demanded the tapes," Konz said. "She told us that Scalia did not want the speech to be tape-recorded."

When Associated Press reporter Denise Grones balked, "the marshal grabbed the tape recorder," Konz said, and erased the digital recording.

Konz said the marshal then removed the tape from her recorder and walked away with it. "I said, 'I need that tape,' she said. "I tried to explain there was stuff on the other side that I needed." After the event, the marshal agreed to return the tape, but only after taping over the 40 minutes that covered the time of Scalia's appearance.

Konz said she was surprised by Scalia's actions, since she had met him four years ago when he gave a speech at a local college where she was a student.

"I had my picture taken with him," she said. "I certainly wasn't expecting something like this. What was this about? Why was he so upset?"

Experts in 1st Amendment law say it is generally understood that officials — including judges — cannot confiscate or destroy notes or records that journalists obtain in public events.

"This is a major embarrassment. And it is unsupportable as a matter of law," said Jane Kirtley, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and an expert on press law. "They could have said, 'No Press Allowed.' But if they let the reporters in and there are no ground rules announced in advance, they can't then say you can't report that or you can't use that."

She said that principle was invoked recently in Mississippi when a judge tried to punish a reporter for writing a newspaper article about a defendant's juvenile record, which had been described in an open court hearing. The state Supreme Court ruled that the information, once made public, could not be declared confidential afterward.

Kirtley also said the action by Scalia and the marshal appeared to violate the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which says: "It shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee … to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast or other similar form of public communication." The law also says victims of such official confiscations may sue the violators.

Neuborne said he was disappointed by Scalia's action in light of his past decisions upholding the 1st Amendment. "This is very surprising coming from him, since he has a good grasp of the 1st Amendment," Neuborne said. "This doesn't live up to the ideals of the 1st Amendment. He should know he can't use a U.S. marshal as a private police force to enforce his will."

Earlier Wednesday, Scalia prompted a minor flap at nearby William Carey College, a private Baptist school.

Reporters and TV crews were told that they could not record Scalia's speech, but that they could photograph him afterward at a social reception. But when the justice entered the reception area, he told the reporters and TV crews that they would have to leave.

"That was my fault. I did not realize it was longstanding policy not to give interviews to the press," said college President Larry Kennedy.

A press aide at the college sent a note of apology to reporters afterward. "They had been invited by me, based on what turned out to be wrong information," said Jeanna Graves, the spokeswoman.

Last year, Scalia's aversion of the press made headlines in Cleveland. He was given the annual Citadel of Free Speech award by the City Club of Cleveland in honor of his efforts on behalf of the "preservation of the 1st Amendment." But the justice nonetheless barred TV reporters and camera crews from covering his luncheon speech.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scalia9apr09,1,1209855.story



zimv20
Apr 9, 2004, 10:53 AM
despicable. i wonder to whom this man is a role model.

3rdpath
Apr 9, 2004, 10:55 AM
i had to read this article twice...unbelievable.

i think he needs a constitutional law refresher...


The Constitution protects the rights of all, he said, according to a reporter's account. It is a "brilliant piece of work…. People just don't revere it like they used to," he said....oh, the irony.

IJ Reilly
Apr 9, 2004, 11:25 AM
despicable. i wonder to whom this man is a role model.

Easy one: George W. Bush. He's said it many times.

Ugg
Apr 9, 2004, 11:32 AM
The Constitution protects the rights of all, he said, according to a reporter's account. It is a "brilliant piece of work…. People just don't revere it like they used to," he said.



I loved that part of it. Freedom of the press is one of the most basic aspects of the Const. yet his disdain for the Const. is so clear that he ranks with the greatest liars of all times. It's time for him to go.

Thomas Veil
Apr 9, 2004, 12:50 PM
Scalia is certainly arrogant and very likely breaking the law in forbidding or confiscating such recordings.

But then, who ya gonna it appeal to...the Supreme Court? :mad:

vniow
Apr 9, 2004, 01:08 PM
That guy has always scared the **** out of me. This isn't helping.

MongoTheGeek
Apr 9, 2004, 01:34 PM
If a guy says "Don't tape me" and there is an announcement on the PA before hand "Don't tape this" Shouldn't you be polite and not tape it?

skunk
Apr 9, 2004, 01:46 PM
If a guy says "Don't tape me" and there is an announcement on the PA before hand "Don't tape this" Shouldn't you be polite and not tape it?
No. If you don't want something you say reported, keep your mouth shut.

IJ Reilly
Apr 9, 2004, 01:47 PM
If a guy says "Don't tape me" and there is an announcement on the PA before hand "Don't tape this" Shouldn't you be polite and not tape it?

Arguably, but that's not what happened here. No announcement was made and the reporter's recorded notes were confiscated ex-post facto (by a Federal agent, no less).

Personally, I believe that someone who objects to being recorded should not engage in public speaking. Scalia is trying to have it both ways -- and when he can't, isn't above using strong-arm tactics to get it. This tells me just about all I need to know about his personality. And this man is a Supreme Court justice?

miloblithe
Apr 9, 2004, 01:57 PM
If a guy says "Don't tape me" and there is an announcement on the PA before hand "Don't tape this" Shouldn't you be polite and not tape it?

A good question would be, "why is he giving public speeches if he refuses to have them taped?" Regardless, however, the issue here is not politeness, but erasing recordings journalists had already made.

MongoTheGeek
Apr 9, 2004, 03:45 PM
A good question would be, "why is he giving public speeches if he refuses to have them taped?" Regardless, however, the issue here is not politeness, but erasing recordings journalists had already made.

Where do you draw the line though in what is allowed to be recorded without the person's permission? If I stalk you down the street with a camera and then broadcast it is that right? The reports I read from the team and participants at the event said there was an announcement. They also said that Scalia almost never allows himself to be recorded. (Odd because he was on a PBS TV show back in the 90s) It could be that the reporters missed it. They came in late and taped it anyway. It could be because he was speaking ex officio instead of ex cathedra. Perhaps he knew there would be questions and answers and he wouldn't have time to think things out completely so didn't want to be on the record with an incomplete though. Perhaps he has had his words twisted in the media. Perhaps he just wants to have a life beyond his job.

zimv20
Apr 9, 2004, 03:55 PM
Where do you draw the line though in what is allowed to be recorded without the person's permission?
on the other side of a public official giving a speech. it's newsworthy. press was there. scalia is supposed to be an official of the most reverent body that protects the constitution. even a strict constructionist must recognize the sanctity of the first amendment. his behavior is plainly anti-first amendment.

how am i supposed to believe that he holds dear the same constitutional protections that i do? he was appointed, approved and swore in to protect the constitution -- but he's ignoring it. and you're defending him.

pseudobrit
Apr 9, 2004, 03:56 PM
Where do you draw the line though in what is allowed to be recorded without the person's permission? If I stalk you down the street with a camera and then broadcast it is that right?

Actually, yes. I'm on public property walking in the open.

MongoTheGeek
Apr 9, 2004, 03:56 PM
Let me pre-emtively apologize. I just saw a newer article on the matter which said at the HS where the recording was taped that there was no announcement. My first source was wrong.

zimv20
Apr 9, 2004, 03:59 PM
Let me pre-emtively apologize. I just saw a newer article on the matter which said at the HS where the recording was taped that there was no announcement. My first source was wrong.
no worries

MongoTheGeek
Apr 9, 2004, 04:05 PM
on the other side of a public official giving a speech. it's newsworthy. press was there. scalia is supposed to be an official of the most reverent body that protects the constitution. even a strict constructionist must recognize the sanctity of the first amendment. his behavior is plainly anti-first amendment.

how am i supposed to believe that he holds dear the same constitutional protections that i do? he was appointed, approved and swore in to protect the constitution -- but he's ignoring it. and you're defending him.

Yes but there are restrictions on speech and reporting. The issue though is not the reporting on the speech, the issue is the recording of it. A news reporter is not allowed to video tape a play to report on it without permission. They are kept out of some graduation ceremonies.

Perhaps he should just have had the reporters ejected when he found them taping?

MongoTheGeek
Apr 9, 2004, 04:06 PM
Actually, yes. I'm on public property walking in the open.

What if you go into a bachelor/ette party of a mutual friend?

zimv20
Apr 9, 2004, 04:12 PM
Yes but there are restrictions on speech and reporting.
i'm not familiar w/ all the ins and outs. if you can point me to a statute that limits the press' ability to record a speech, i'll happily have a look


A news reporter is not allowed to video tape a play to report on it without permission.

that's a for-fee, copyrighted production


They are kept out of some graduation ceremonies.
i've never heard of that -- why would an institution do that? what statutes prevent that?

it is true that if you follow around a random person and record them, you need their permission to broadcast the recording. public figures are generally excepted from this. like i said, i'd be happy to review a statute that protects scalia's speech the way he wants.

what's not clear to me is if the reporters intended to broadcast the recordings, which i doubt, or if they were simply used for notetaking. if the latter, does that change your opinion?

pseudobrit
Apr 9, 2004, 04:52 PM
i've never heard of that -- why would an institution do that? what statutes prevent that?

If it's held on private property...

it is true that if you follow around a random person and record them, you need their permission to broadcast the recording.

Not always though. Think of broadcasts that have people walking around in the background during a news report or show an audience at a sporting event or citizens speaking at a local council hearing.

From what I can piece together, releases need to be signed if people do not have reason to believe their actions and likeness are recorded, especially if they're in a setting where they can reasonably expect privacy (think Taxicab Confessions). Also, I wonder if there aren't restrictions separate for visual and audio recording. Have you ever seen something televised (say, on COPS) where a face is blurred out but the voice is still aired?

LethalWolfe
Apr 9, 2004, 05:10 PM
"news" and "commercial" uses are getting confused here. Commerical usage has many more restrictions than news usage does. For example, COPS. That's a commerical TV program. If the person on camera doesn't sign a release allowing their image to be used then their face gets blurred out. Flip side, if a TV station camera crew happends to be outside a bank when it gets robbed and they tape the whole thing they do not need permission to show peoples' faces on TV.

The classic example is a news crew covering a story at a local resturant. A woman at home watching the news sees her husband having a romantic dinner w/another woman in the background. Wife divorices husband. Husband attempts to sue the TV station for using his image w/o permission. Husband loses case because 1. he's in public (thus has no expectation to privacy) and 2. the footage was for news, not commerical use.

Just look at all the papparatzi<sp?> that take unwanted pix of celebs and sell them to tabloid "news" papers.

Of course there are lots of gray areas but these are the rules of thumb.


Lethal

zimv20
Apr 9, 2004, 05:47 PM
abcnews made this easy -- there's a federal law against the seizure of a reporter's notes

IJ Reilly
Apr 10, 2004, 12:05 PM
Let me pre-emtively apologize. I just saw a newer article on the matter which said at the HS where the recording was taped that there was no announcement. My first source was wrong.

What was your "first source"? The article I posted to start this thread contained that very fact.