Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Apr 9, 2004.
despicable. i wonder to whom this man is a role model.
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.
Easy one: George W. Bush. He's said it many times.
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.
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?
That guy has always scared the **** out of me. This isn't helping.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Actually, yes. I'm on public property walking in the open.
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.
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?
What if you go into a bachelor/ette party of a mutual friend?
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
that's a for-fee, copyrighted production
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?
If it's held on private property...
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?
"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.
abcnews made this easy -- there's a federal law against the seizure of a reporter's notes
What was your "first source"? The article I posted to start this thread contained that very fact.