Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Once again, Justice Scalia seems to think that the media cannot record his public speeches, or even take pictures of them. Carlos Miller explains:
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia praised the Constitution at a Mississippi university while barking at news photographers documenting the speech.In fact, Scalia wouldn't even allow video cameras inside the auditorium at William Carey University in Hattiesburg on Monday.
This is why WDAM-TV videographer Mon Mussiett was forced to snap still photos instead of shoot video.
But in fact, Scalia stopped his speech to tell the photographer to stop taking his picture, according to the local paper:
There was friction between Scalia and a media outlet during the speech. Even though still cameras were permitted, Scalia voiced his displeasure with WDAM-TV cameraman Mon Mussiett as he snapped photos."Could we stop the photos please?" he asked at one point.
Now here's the really interesting part. Carlos spoke to another photographer at the event, who tells this part of the story:
This is after we were stopped by a rent-a-cop at the door and had to find a U.S. Marshal to inform the security guard that still photography was in fact allowed.
This is interesting because it's not the first time it's happened. In fact, it's not the first time it's happened in that same city, Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Back in 2004, federal marshals seized tape recorders from reporters from the local paper and from the Associated Press. Scalia later had to apologize for this and the recorders were returned, but it seems he still hasn't learned his lesson.
Scalia has long had a policy against allowing his speeches to be recorded, even by C-Span or other TV networks. After the 2004 incident, he said he had changed his policy to allow his speeches to be recorded "for use by the print media" but still evidently forbid video cameras into this public speech.
Justice Scalia is a public official. When he speaks in public at public events, the press has every right to record and report on what he says, whether by audio or video. They have a right to take his picture as well. Perhaps he should spend less time praising the constitution and more time reading it.
Politics
Comments
Well, as Chief Opus Dei Justice, doesn't "Tony Ducks" get to decide which of the BoR's 10 items he likes or dislikes? I mean they sure don't do that job for the measly $206K (2006 figures) or so that they get. They could be making much more as legalwhores for some bigass corporation. So cut the guy a little slack.
Hey, wait, I got it! This is more of Tony's highly regarded sense of humor!
Posted by: democommie | April 14, 2009 9:42 AM
Perhaps J. Scalia fears the photographs will steal his soul...
Oh, wait...
Posted by: Bill Snedden | April 14, 2009 9:50 AM
Speaking the BOR, Clarence Thomas had some interesting things to say in a speech yesterday:
It's frightening to hear a Supreme Court justice talk about "too much focus on our rights".Posted by: Taz | April 14, 2009 9:58 AM
"Speaking OF the BOR", that is.
Posted by: Taz | April 14, 2009 10:01 AM
"proliferation of rights..."
Say what?
Posted by: dogmeatib | April 14, 2009 10:29 AM
Wow, who exactly is it that is sworn to protect our rights?
Posted by: Schmeer | April 14, 2009 10:35 AM
Taz (quoting Thomas): Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?”
Sure. Just as soon as an amendment adding a "Bill of Obligations" passes both Houses of Congress by a 2/3 majority and then is ratified by 3/4 of the States. Like the way the actual Bill of Rights was added.
Maybe Thomas and Scalia can study basic High School civics together.
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 14, 2009 10:40 AM
Given the advances in miniature video cameras it won't be long before some enterprising person surreptitiously records one of his speeches and puts it on the net.
Posted by: Doug Alder | April 14, 2009 10:54 AM
Chiroptera stated:
I have a hunch that would cause more harm than good. ;)
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 14, 2009 10:57 AM
I disagree with your assertion that the press have a constitutional right to use whatever ever means they wish to record an event occurring on private property simply because a public official happens to be speaking.
A common misconception about the Bill of Rights is that it creates a bunch of positive rights in the people. In actuality, the Bill of Rights imposes limitations on the power of the government. It does not apply to a private Baptist college.
Posted by: Paul | April 14, 2009 11:49 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | April 14, 2009 12:16 PM
Paul:
While you may be right, it would be interesting to know if that policy has been applied in the past or whether it's even stated.
Posted by: democommie | April 14, 2009 4:06 PM
I think you missed it.
Your confusing Justice Scalia's privately held standards, preferences and his right to speak forcefully of his standards and preferences with public standards and law.
He has every right to demand he not be recorded and photographed. He might also demand his next meal be spoon fed to him by virgins. We have every right to ignore those demands, or not, and to photograph and record him, or not, as we see fit. The virgin thing is also optional.
We might respect his preferences as a courtesy or out of respect for him or his position. But we are not required by law to comply to his demands. What can he do? Likely he could storm off and sulk. He could call a cop. There is some chance the police might be blinded enough by rank and title to try to enforce Justice Scalia's preferences but that doesn't make it legal and any LEO worth his salt would politely tell Scalia to suck eggs.
Justice Scalia has the right to bluff and bluster and act as if his word were law. We have the right to ignore his bluster and call his bluff or mistakenly assume the word of a Justice is a statement of constitutional law when it is not.
Posted by: Art | April 14, 2009 5:26 PM
Posted by: Paul Murray | April 15, 2009 3:51 AM
Paul Murray:
I don't think Tony Ducks has any power in that area. He may be able to get someone arrested, but beyond that he's not part of the justice system the way a DA is. I understand that he may know people who know people, etc., but I don't think he has that sort of legal authority--not least because he would probably have already used it.
Posted by: democommie | April 15, 2009 4:42 AM