![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
richardf8Bob Herbert of the New York Times reported and commented on the seizure of reporters' recordings of a public address by Antonin Scalia. Now since he is an opinion columnist, and not to be trusted on that account, I looked for a more reliable source and found
A decision by federal authorities to confiscate recordings from two reporters of a speech by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at Presbyterian Christian High School on Wednesday brought sharp criticism from a national journalists' advocacy group.
And the action raised questions with a media law expert and news organizations over whether authorities overstepped their bounds when they seized the recordings by the Hattiesburg American and the Associated Press.
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, called the seizure and partial erasure by a federal marshal of a microcassette owned by Hattiesburg American reporter Antoinette Konz and the erasing of a digital recording by Associated Press reporter Denise Grones "outrageous." The group said it has filed a formal protest with U.S. Attorney John Ashcroft, the U.S. Marshals Service and state authorities.
"Not that I imagine our protest is going to have any effect on him whatsoever," Dalglish said of Scalia. "We're like mosquitoes buzzing around his head. Nothing is going to stop him from doing what he wants to do."
The committee's decision to file the complaint was made independently of the Hattiesburg American.
"We are deeply concerned over the manner in which this incident was handled," said Jon Broadbooks, executive editor of the Hattiesburg American and vice president of the Mississippi Center for Freedom of Information. "When we have answers to some of our questions, we will determine an appropriate next step."
"I'm very disappointed that one of the strongest voices for the people of the United States did not speak out in protection of First Amendment rights," said Judith "Skippy" Haik, president and publisher of the Hattiesburg American. "This shouldn't have happened at a speech that he was giving."
Ron Haristt, news editor at the Associated Press' Jackson bureau, said he believed the action wasn't justified but his organization hadn't decided what its next step would be.
"We are upset that a federal officer would prevent one of our reporters from doing our job," he said.
Scalia was about 35 minutes into his speech at Presbyterian Christian when U.S. Marshal Melanie Rube of the Jackson office confronted the reporters in the front row of the school's gymnasium and demanded they give her the recordings. Both reporters said they had no prior notice from either federal authorities or school officials that electronic recording was prohibited. Konz said she and Grones tried to protest the action, but each time they were told by Rube to hand over the recordings.
The Associated Press reporter's recording was erased by Rube, Konz said. Konz's tape was seized but later returned to her after she challenged the marshal about the action after the speech. The marshal ordered Konz to erase the tape, and she complied with the order.
Dalglish cited a portion of the federal Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which she said states government officers investigating a criminal offense may not search 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" unless members of the media have committed a crime.
Dalglish said under U.S. Department of Justice guidelines approval must be obtained from the U.S. Attorney General before reporters' materials are seized.
During the Presbyterian Christian speech, Scalia extolled the virtues of the U.S. Constitution, a document he called "something extraordinary, something to revere."
A spokeswoman for the Marshals Service declined comment for publication about the matter and referred all inquires to the Supreme Court's public affairs office.
Supreme Court spokesman Ed Turner referred questions to the Marshals Service.
"Arrangements for appearances are made between a justice and the organization that makes the invitation," Turner said in a prepared statement. "Justice Scalia prefers not to have video or audio recordings of his remarks."
Barrett Mosbacker, Presbyterian Christian's headmaster, said he had no warning prior to the Wednesday event from either Scalia or federal officials that reporters could not use electronic devices to record the speech.
He said U.S. marshals inspected the high school on Tuesday and confirmed Scalia's arrival time. Once at the high school Wednesday, Scalia went to a private office before the speech, Mosbacker said.
Just before Scalia began his speech Wednesday, the marshals told him that no electronic devices were allowed to be used, Mosbacker said.
He then said he told a newspaper photographer and a camera operator with WDAM-Channel 7 not to use their equipment.
"We did not know what the restrictions might be until the marshals showed up," he said.
Earlier on Wednesday, Scalia spoke at a convocation at William Carey College. An announcement was made to those at the assembly that the use of electronic recording devices was prohibited.
At a reception afterward, Scalia told television reporters to leave and newspaper photographers were told not to take photos. College officials later allowed the Hattiesburg American to take pictures after others in attendance began taking photos.
The schools invited the media to both events.
William Carey College President Larry Kennedy took any blame for the confusion and said he did not realize that Scalia did not give interviews.
"I would say it's my fault that I did not realize that he did not give interviews," Kennedy said. "I am not angry or upset. If that's Justice Scalia's policy, that's his policy. We certainly didn't intend to mislead the media."
Leonard VanSlyke, an attorney for the Mississippi Center for Freedom of Information, said he would have to review the law that Dalglish cited.
"There is a legitimate First Amendment concern to the actions that were taken," he said.
Asked what could have happened to the reporters if they had not surrendered their recordings, VanSlyke said: "Who knows? I don't believe that the marshals office had an authority to act."
"We're like mosquitoes buzzing around his (Scalia's) head. Nothing is going to stop him from doing what he wants to do."
American Staff Writer kwalters@hattiesb.gannett.com
Scalia is very possibly the most disturbing figure in the American political system. In 7/2 rulings favoring the side of the Light, it is always him and Thomas that form the dissent. The nepotism implicit in his long term friendship with Dick Cheney and his refusal to recuse himself from a case that touches someone that he calls a friend speaks poorly of his respect for the notion of a fair, unbiased judiciary. And here we see a resistance to transparency that is inimical to the most fundamental notions democracy.
And this is what our Commander-in-Thief, the Resident of the United States, the foul usurper who would not have commandeered the Whitehouse without Scalia's vote, holds up as his paragon of Justice and his ideal for a replacement to any just who grows to old, infirm, or dead to continue in his or her duties.
And that is why it is absolutely imperative that anyone who cherishes a free America vote for Kerry; because if the Fortunate Son of the Oil Oligarchy gets to appoint a supreme court justice, you can expect a level of Judicial Activism that would warm the heart of Stalin.
A decision by federal authorities to confiscate recordings from two reporters of a speech by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at Presbyterian Christian High School on Wednesday brought sharp criticism from a national journalists' advocacy group.
And the action raised questions with a media law expert and news organizations over whether authorities overstepped their bounds when they seized the recordings by the Hattiesburg American and the Associated Press.
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, called the seizure and partial erasure by a federal marshal of a microcassette owned by Hattiesburg American reporter Antoinette Konz and the erasing of a digital recording by Associated Press reporter Denise Grones "outrageous." The group said it has filed a formal protest with U.S. Attorney John Ashcroft, the U.S. Marshals Service and state authorities.
"Not that I imagine our protest is going to have any effect on him whatsoever," Dalglish said of Scalia. "We're like mosquitoes buzzing around his head. Nothing is going to stop him from doing what he wants to do."
The committee's decision to file the complaint was made independently of the Hattiesburg American.
"We are deeply concerned over the manner in which this incident was handled," said Jon Broadbooks, executive editor of the Hattiesburg American and vice president of the Mississippi Center for Freedom of Information. "When we have answers to some of our questions, we will determine an appropriate next step."
"I'm very disappointed that one of the strongest voices for the people of the United States did not speak out in protection of First Amendment rights," said Judith "Skippy" Haik, president and publisher of the Hattiesburg American. "This shouldn't have happened at a speech that he was giving."
Ron Haristt, news editor at the Associated Press' Jackson bureau, said he believed the action wasn't justified but his organization hadn't decided what its next step would be.
"We are upset that a federal officer would prevent one of our reporters from doing our job," he said.
Scalia was about 35 minutes into his speech at Presbyterian Christian when U.S. Marshal Melanie Rube of the Jackson office confronted the reporters in the front row of the school's gymnasium and demanded they give her the recordings. Both reporters said they had no prior notice from either federal authorities or school officials that electronic recording was prohibited. Konz said she and Grones tried to protest the action, but each time they were told by Rube to hand over the recordings.
The Associated Press reporter's recording was erased by Rube, Konz said. Konz's tape was seized but later returned to her after she challenged the marshal about the action after the speech. The marshal ordered Konz to erase the tape, and she complied with the order.
Dalglish cited a portion of the federal Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which she said states government officers investigating a criminal offense may not search 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" unless members of the media have committed a crime.
Dalglish said under U.S. Department of Justice guidelines approval must be obtained from the U.S. Attorney General before reporters' materials are seized.
During the Presbyterian Christian speech, Scalia extolled the virtues of the U.S. Constitution, a document he called "something extraordinary, something to revere."
A spokeswoman for the Marshals Service declined comment for publication about the matter and referred all inquires to the Supreme Court's public affairs office.
Supreme Court spokesman Ed Turner referred questions to the Marshals Service.
"Arrangements for appearances are made between a justice and the organization that makes the invitation," Turner said in a prepared statement. "Justice Scalia prefers not to have video or audio recordings of his remarks."
Barrett Mosbacker, Presbyterian Christian's headmaster, said he had no warning prior to the Wednesday event from either Scalia or federal officials that reporters could not use electronic devices to record the speech.
He said U.S. marshals inspected the high school on Tuesday and confirmed Scalia's arrival time. Once at the high school Wednesday, Scalia went to a private office before the speech, Mosbacker said.
Just before Scalia began his speech Wednesday, the marshals told him that no electronic devices were allowed to be used, Mosbacker said.
He then said he told a newspaper photographer and a camera operator with WDAM-Channel 7 not to use their equipment.
"We did not know what the restrictions might be until the marshals showed up," he said.
Earlier on Wednesday, Scalia spoke at a convocation at William Carey College. An announcement was made to those at the assembly that the use of electronic recording devices was prohibited.
At a reception afterward, Scalia told television reporters to leave and newspaper photographers were told not to take photos. College officials later allowed the Hattiesburg American to take pictures after others in attendance began taking photos.
The schools invited the media to both events.
William Carey College President Larry Kennedy took any blame for the confusion and said he did not realize that Scalia did not give interviews.
"I would say it's my fault that I did not realize that he did not give interviews," Kennedy said. "I am not angry or upset. If that's Justice Scalia's policy, that's his policy. We certainly didn't intend to mislead the media."
Leonard VanSlyke, an attorney for the Mississippi Center for Freedom of Information, said he would have to review the law that Dalglish cited.
"There is a legitimate First Amendment concern to the actions that were taken," he said.
Asked what could have happened to the reporters if they had not surrendered their recordings, VanSlyke said: "Who knows? I don't believe that the marshals office had an authority to act."
"We're like mosquitoes buzzing around his (Scalia's) head. Nothing is going to stop him from doing what he wants to do."
American Staff Writer kwalters@hattiesb.gannett.com
Scalia is very possibly the most disturbing figure in the American political system. In 7/2 rulings favoring the side of the Light, it is always him and Thomas that form the dissent. The nepotism implicit in his long term friendship with Dick Cheney and his refusal to recuse himself from a case that touches someone that he calls a friend speaks poorly of his respect for the notion of a fair, unbiased judiciary. And here we see a resistance to transparency that is inimical to the most fundamental notions democracy.
And this is what our Commander-in-Thief, the Resident of the United States, the foul usurper who would not have commandeered the Whitehouse without Scalia's vote, holds up as his paragon of Justice and his ideal for a replacement to any just who grows to old, infirm, or dead to continue in his or her duties.
And that is why it is absolutely imperative that anyone who cherishes a free America vote for Kerry; because if the Fortunate Son of the Oil Oligarchy gets to appoint a supreme court justice, you can expect a level of Judicial Activism that would warm the heart of Stalin.
