Scalia Apologizes

|

Excerpt from the Supe's PDF-formatted letter to The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:

[T]he action was not taken at my direction; I was as upset as you were. I have written to the reporters involved, extending my apology, and undertaking to revise my policy so as to permit recording for use of the print media.

Link via The Volokh Conspiracy.

Advertisement

NEXT: Mitchell and Harry and Janet and John

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A class act.

  2. Common sense is so boring!

    How many of the media outlets that carried the original story will also carry this follow-up? 😉

  3. Good for Scalia and his living by his principles!

    I called it!

    On “Scalia’s inappropriate use of police power..”
    in the April 8th thread “Scalia’s Purge”, I wrote:

    “Only if he, authorized Deputy Rube, to order the erasure. It’s not clear from the story that, that is what happened. He can request abstention from recording all he wants, but actually enforcing compliance is another matter.”

    “Were I the reporter, I would have yelled out, “Justice Scalia, this federal marshal is trying to FORCE ME to erase the tape. Are my rights being violated?” Given his often pro-liberty votes in cases, it wouldn’t surprise me if he would respond something like, “yes, she may not force you to erase it but I’m asking you to do so since ‘no recording’ was a stipulation of my talk.”

    Posted by Rick Barton at April 8, 2004 07:20 PM

    Ok, that’s enough of me patting myself on the back. Justice Scalia however, deserves much more.

  4. Serafina, I think the key words there are “in their official capacity.” Obviously, what Scalia does on the bench should be public, but I’m not sure all speaking engagements need meet that standard.

    In fact, I suspect it’s quite common for a public figure, even a government official, to request he or she not be video- or audio-taped during a speech.

    –ME

  5. Douglas,

    Now if the trip were “free” it wouldn’t be “no expenses paid”, would it?

    Did you accidentally frag yourself back in the day Douglas?

    Oh well, Israel a nice country with a government that really sucks because, among other things, it is too influenced by its fundamentalist, racist nut balls.

  6. Excellent work, Rick!

    For this, the editors of Reason have decided to award you a free trip to Israel, no expenses paid!

  7. The trip is free, nothing else is. A trip is going from one place to another. Our lawyers tell us we’re on sold footing on that one.

    Did I frag myself? Well, I was in the Navy. Generally, they didn’t let us play with guns or hand grenades there, so I guess not. You must be referring to some long ago flame war on this site.

  8. Free Trip. Gotcha. Sorry, my bad.
    Frag…. a while back, you asked me the same thing. I wasn’t even sure what it meant then. Not, that I’m not exceedingly hep of course…

  9. So, who did order the erasure of the tapes, and if it was illegal, will they be charged with the crime?

  10. Memo to self: Public outrage at injustices still works occasionally, as in this case. That shows the country hasn’t completely gone to hell.

  11. Holy Shit,

    He’s going to let people record his speechs for print media?!? Can we give yet another free speech award to this guy or should we just wait for the next set of Nobel prizes?

  12. Speeches by public servants in their official capacity should be public. The distinction Scalia makes between print and electronic journalism is spurious.

  13. Great looking Blog Keep up the good work!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.