[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.

[gatex]

"Several journalism groups are expressing outrage ..."

Never hear of gun owner groups experessing "outrage."

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Tribune7]

I'm a BIG Scalia fan, but this is outrageous.

ditto that.

[lodwick]

Welcome to the gulag.

[bvw]

"The policy itself (not allowing tape recording of public speeches) is unjustifiable"

It's justifiable and even wise in some cases, in some times. For a sort-of related example, the original Constitutional Convention held all its proceddings in secret. In any case, it the Justice's choice to make.

However, your sense of "unjustifiable" is not without some good founding. For the normal and reasonable expectation is that speeches by public officials in public or quasi-public venues are open to any recording.

Therefore a clear and strong effort to inform the public of any restrictions on such recording must be be assured. Not only by the Marshals and the organizers -- but by the Justice, himself, who is the source of such a extraordinary request.

[timestax]

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . a journalist's work product . . .

Is that what we call "pressing the RECORD button?" A "journalist's work product" was not at stake here by any means, for a journalist's work product these days is an article based on quotes taken out of context and twisted to suit a political agenda. Guess this poor "journalist" will have to work from memory.

[montag813]

IF a sign was posted or other notice given
that recording the speech was not permitted
and it was nonetheless done surreptitiously
then the authorities had every right to confiscate and/or erase.
We are a nation of laws, not of journalists outside the law.