Forced erasures of Scalia speech outrage journalists

CNN ^ | 4/9/04 | CNN

[jaime1959]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Several journalism groups are expressing outrage over the actions of a deputy marshal who forced the erasure of two journalists' audio recordings of a speech by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at a Mississippi high school.

The U.S. Marshals Service stopped short of fully defending the deputy's actions.

[jaime1959]

I'm a BIG Scalia fan, but this is outrageous. The policy itself (not allowing tape recording of public speeches) is unjustifiable, but to forcibly seize and erase recordings??!! Who the F does he think he is?

[TrueBeliever9]

Not outrageous at all! I have attended many conferences, seminars, and speeches in which recording is strictly forbidden! Most organizations request that their forum not be recorded! This organization certainly had that right and the media should have respected it!

[middie]

The politically aware world awaits the righteous indignation and passion of FR posters at the conduct of Mr. Justice Scalia.

[gg188]

"public" speech?

Was this not taking place on private property? If so, the property owner is final arbiter of whether or not a recording is allowed to be made.

[tet68]

This organization certainly had that right and the media should have respected it!

Had said policy been announced in advance, then perhaps so.
In this case no.

[SauronOfMordor]

1) The policy was not specified in advance, so there was nothing wrong about the reporters recording up to the point that the policy was announced

2) Once the policy was announced, the response should have been limited to telling the reporters to either stop recording, or leave

3) Grabbing somebody's private property was a no-no, IMHO

[gatex]

"Several journalism groups are expressing outrage ..."

Never hear of gun owner groups experessing "outrage."

[TrueBeliever9]

Scalia often prohibits audio and video recordings of his speeches, but does allow the media to cover his non-judicial appearances. His policy is similar to that of his colleagues on the bench.

Looks like the Marshals knew the protocol; therefore, I am sure the journalists knew the protocol (these things aren't exactly secrets)! And I really respect the US Marshals - having hung around with a few! Sorry for not being more bias!

[snooker]

well if the CNN journalists don't like his terms they could always just stay home. Last time I looked there was no law about anyone speaking to an invited audience and not allowing recording of the proceedings.

Heck the 'toon won't allow the video tape to be release of him telling the audience he refused to take bin Laden when offered. Maybe you should email the 'toon and ask him to allow the video to be released.

[steplock]

Not outrageous at all! ???

Yes it is outrageous - and illegal - immoral - and he deserves full impeachment for this travesty.

Who does he think he is? Czar? Clinton? Reno? or Bush?

Time to re-enact what our forefathers did for their freedom and re-create the United States of America - a REPUBLIC.

I have lived in communist dictatorships and I have no desire to live under a fascist dictatorship.

[jaime1959]

> I have attended many conferences, seminars, and speeches in which recording is strictly forbidden! <

By public officials?

[jaime1959]

> I have attended many conferences, seminars, and speeches in which recording is strictly forbidden! <

By public officials?

[TrueBeliever9]

I have to say yes to that question!

[TrueBeliever9]

And add although they were not public, but you left public out of your question.

[JimRed]

This high-handed and unlawful seizure of a journalist's work product...

Hand written notes might qualify as work product, but not a recording. I suspect the potential for some creative editing on recordings might be the reason to forbid them.

Not that they won't spin the story in their "work product" anyway.

[bvw]

The Marshals: "try to be helpful to justices and judges, and to ensure their preferences are met."

I would hope they also attempt to be respectful of every citizen, and sworn to the Law. This blurb suggests the rule of whims, not law. It is just a fragment, a blurb, but it gets to what happened, for when officers narrow the focus too constricted to a set task, they thus reduce proper respect for the citizen, for the person from the public, for general Liberty, this kind of overreach and bad action results.

[TrueBeliever9]

clarity: you left out public conferences, meetings, etc.; you asked public officials

[TopQuark]

I'm a BIG Scalia fan, Is that relevant to the matter of principle?

but this is outrageous. The policy itself (not allowing tape recording of public speeches) is unjustifiable, Have you heard the justifications ususally given and reject those, or you is this a one-sided rejection?

but to forcibly seize and erase recordings??!! What is so unusual about this? You have a private contract --- say, a car loan from a bank. You violate the contract, the wronged party ceizes the car.

to be Who the F does he think he is? I don't know. But who do you think YOU are to use such language in public?

[hedgetrimmer]

You're directing your vitriol at the wrong judge. Just for your information, a US marshall was the person who made the reporter erase the tape, not the judge himself.

But here, if you want to trash a Supreme, this is the one to go after:

"I suspect," O'Connor said, according to the Atlanta daily, "that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues."
Doing so, she added, "may not only enrich our own country's decisions, I think it may create that all important good impression."

These are the words from a Supreme Court Justice who has SWORN AN OATH to uphold the Constitution of the United States!

Please write today to your Congressmen and tell them that they must REIGN IN these OUT OF CONTROL activist Judges. (Read MORE FOR FULL ARTICLE)

http://www.patriotreview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=39