Scalia, Feedom of Speech, and the Lost America

Re: Scalia, Feedom of Speech, and the Lost America

Quote:

But this is the United States in the 21st century where the power brokers have gone mad. They've deluded themselves into thinking they're royalty, not public servants charged with protecting the rights and interests of the people. Both recordings were erased. Only then was the reporters' property returned.

This is the reality of George Bush's Amerika in 2004. Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

"Thirty-five minutes into the speech we were approached by a woman who identified herself as a deputy U.S. marshal," Ms. Konz told me in a telephone conversation on Friday. "She said that we should not be recording and that she needed to have our tapes."

This part of the article really says it all. I was reminded of reporters experiences trying to interview deposts like Fidel Castro or Manuel Noriega.

I can't speak for you, but I have no desire or longing for aristocracy. [/color]

0 Replies

Well I know I'm going to be slammed for saying this, but there is no constitutional right to photograph or tape people in a private setting. If the rule is 'no cameras' or 'no tape recorders', that should be respected.

I have often been in settings where it was requested that tape recorders be turned off. Why? Because sometimes people cannot speak frankly and candidly with them running--it is too easy to pluck something out of context and air it with or without comment. Out of context, a phrase can give a completely false impression of the intent and can be devastating.

By the time the speaker can protest and try to put it into context, the bell has already been rung and the damage cannot be easily undone. The written word, however, is less easily manipulated and there are laws against intentional malice and slander.

0 Replies

Even Hong Kong under Chinese rule does not have this sort of affront to freedom of speech. What has happened to your country?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well I know I'm going to be slammed for saying this, but there is no constitutional right to photograph or tape people in a private setting. If the rule is 'no cameras' or 'no tape recorders', that should be respected.

As I understand it, there was no announcement made, prior to the speech, about the use of recording devices. The marshall acted on the basis of Scalia's "long-standing policy prohibiting such recordings," but Scalia did not instruct the marshall to confiscate the recording devices.

Foxfyre wrote:

I have often been in settings where it was requested that tape recorders be turned off. Why? Because sometimes people cannot speak frankly and candidly with them running--it is too easy to pluck something out of context and air it with or without comment. Out of context, a phrase can give a completely false impression of the intent and can be devastating.

And I suppose it's impossible to misquote someone or present their words out of context when relying on one's memory rather than on a recording of the speaker's exact words?

Foxfyre wrote:

By the time the speaker can protest and try to put it into context, the bell has already been rung and the damage cannot be easily undone. The written word, however, is less easily manipulated and there are laws against intentional malice and slander.

There are laws against libel and slander. As far as I know, there are no laws against intentional malice.

0 Replies

The following is from I think the Minnesota code, but virtually every state in the union has similar language on the books.

What is a "defamatory" statement?

1. A statement which causes harm to reputation.

A statement is defamatory if it "tends to injure the plaintiff's reputation and expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or degradation." Phipps v. Clark Oil & Ref. Corp., 408 N.W.2d 569, 573 (Minn. 1987). When the defamatory meaning is not apparent on its face, the plaintiff has the burden of pleading and proving such extrinsic facts. Anderson v. Kammeier, 262 N.W.2d 366, 371 (Minn. 1977).

2. Defamation Per se

Some statements are so defamatory that they are considered defamation per se; and the plaintiff does not have to prove that the statements harmed his reputation. The classic examples of defamation per se are allegations of serious sexual misconduct; allegations of serious criminal misbehavior; or allegations that a person is afflicted with a loathsome disease. The historical examples of loathsome diseases are leprosy and venereal diseases. Allegations that a person is afflicted with AIDS may well constitute a modern variation on this form of defamation per se.

When a plaintiff is able to prove defamation per se, damages are presumed, but the presumption is rebuttable.

My comments:
Relating this to journalism generally, erroneous reporting that inadvertently damages somebody is considered defensible if there is 'absence of malice'. If the obvious intent, however, is to expose something bad about the person and is is untrue, there is technically no defense. (These laws are rarely enforced anymore however.)

0 Replies

Quote:

And I suppose it's impossible to misquote someone or present their words out of context when relying on one's memory rather than on a recording of the speaker's exact words?

Out of context quotes are printed all the time as we all know. Just look at some of the stuff being printed for and against the current presidential candidates.

A person's enemies will of course use a quote in an ad or article but it has less emotional impact than does the spoken word. And the written word is out there to cut, paste, and rebut. An inserted out-of-context spoken quote in the person's own voice, however, can be devastating and far more difficult to rebut. Presidential candidates have to endure this. Supreme Court justices do not.

0 Replies

It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has long held that public figures, when in public are to be held to a different standard than private citizens. that is why movies stars have to put up with a swarm of sensation seeking photographers. What make Scalia different, he is not only a public figure but a public employee?

0 Replies

Justice talks about Constitution, reporters' tapes of speech erased

HATTIESBURG, Miss. - Two reporters were ordered Wednesday to erase tapes of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia talking about the Constitution.

Scalia addressed students at a private high school and separately spoke about the Constitution and religion at William Carey College, a small religious college in Hattiesburg.

After Scalia's remarks at the high school, a woman identifying herself as a 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.

In addition, a tape recording made by a reporter for The Hattiesburg American was seized.

Scalia, named to the court by President Reagan in 1986, has long barred television cameras from his speeches but does not always forbid newspaper photographers and tape recorders. Last year, he 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.

In the Mississippi speeches, Scalia talked about his childhood in New York City and his participation in a program allowing students, with a note from their parents, to leave class early on Wednesdays to attend religious instruction.

Such programs would not be allowed under the Supreme Court's current holdings, Scalia said.

He described the court's church-state decisions as "utterly inconsistent with the tradition of the American people."

Scalia urged students at Presbyterian Christian Schools in Hattiesburg to know the Constitution.

"The Constitution of the United States is extraordinary and amazing. People just don't revere it like they used to," Scalia said to a full auditorium of students, officials and religious leaders.

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.

0 Replies

And don't fear that Scalia is somehow more privileged than the other 'supremes'. The same options are available to everybody and for that matter available to any mechanic or bus boy. If you are asked to do a volunteer speech someplace, you also can dictate the terms by which it will be done or can opt not to do it.

There isn't anything at all sinister here people.

0 Replies

By rights though, they should have made some sort of announcement prior to Scalia's speech regarding recording the speech.

0 Replies

Well assuming that the policy was not announced or printed in the bulletin or something and the reporters just missed it, yes it would have been much better to have announced it in advance.

0 Replies

Irony
"he received an award for supporting free speech."

The irony. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Re: Scalia, Feedom of Speech, and the Lost America

doglover wrote:

This is the reality of George Bush's Amerika in 2004.

you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

"Justice Scalia, the big shot, does not like reporters to turn tape recorders on when he's talking, whether that action is protected by the Constitution of the United States or not. He doesn't like it. And he doesn't permit it."
I have news for Scalia, it is protected under freedom of the press so he better get used to it.

0 Replies

Yeah
April 12, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has apologized for an incident last week in which a U.S. marshal erased reporters' recordings of a speech Scalia gave to high school students.

"I have written to the reporters involved, extending my apology," Scalia said in a letter to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Scalia normally bars television cameras from his appearances, but his policy on the use of small audio recorders has not been clear-cut. Newspaper and other print reporters typically use the devices to ensure the accuracy of quotations but not to record speeches or other remarks for broadcast.

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/04/12/scalia/index.html

If you're not a subscriber you may not to view all of the article. I'll look for more links...

* Scalia is now aware that he is under much scrutiny and there are rumblings of impeaching him because he refused to recures himself in the Secret Energy Commission of his buddy Cheney. That hearing is this week.

0 Replies

Should make a humorous anecdote next time he goes duck hunting with Cheney.

0 Replies

Well Cheney is charged with no crime and is not being investigated on any criminal or civil matter; therefore it is not improper for he and Scalia to go hunting together or have dinner together or whatever. And if anybody is talking impeachment of Scalia over that, that is about as descriptive of irrational hate politics as it gets.

I do think purely for the possibility of the appearance of impropriety, it was not a smart move for these two old friends to get together prior to the hearing.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well Cheney is charged with no crime and is not being investigated on any criminal or civil matter; therefore it is not improper for he and Scalia to go hunting together or have dinner together or whatever. And if anybody is talking impeachment of Scalia over that, that is about as descriptive of irrational hate politics as it gets.

The Supreme court is deciding on whether or not records from Cheney's energy task force should be made public. Scalia has refused to recuse himself. You are aware of this, aren't you? Shocked

0 Replies

Scalia is a supreme court justice. I am pretty sure he knows the law a bit better than ANYONE on this board.

0 Replies

Scalia, Feedom of Speech, and the Lost America

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know