The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Did SCOTUS Partially Edit Out The Toilet Flush?
I hear subtle differences
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc. Around the 59:40 mark, there was an audible toilet flush in the background. The C-SPAN clip went viral:
LISTEN: Toilet flush during U.S. Supreme Court oral argument (h/t @nicninh) pic.twitter.com/He3QGMzvJI
— Jeremy Art (@cspanJeremy) May 6, 2020
The Supreme Court posted the audio the same day, which is now on Oyez. I've cropped out the relevant segment.
I hear subtle differences, but I may have listened to these clips far too many times, Zapruder style.
Here is the full text:
"And what the FCC has said is that when the subject matter of the call ranges to such topics then the call is transformed."
From the C-SPAN recording:
- When Martinez says "subject," you hear someone pulling the toilet handle.
- When Martinez says "ranges," you hear the water start to flow.
- When Marintez says "transformed," the water sound fades.
From the SCOTUS recording there are several breaks in the audio, and when Martinez says "topics," his voice gets echoey. Am I hearing things?
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I am no expert on audio recordings, but the second version sounds awful in general, as I have sometimes gotten by using too low a bit rate for MP3s. Maybe that's all it takes.
Now *this* is the analysis I come here for.
Gotta go to slate to get the real good stuff, though.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/toilet-flush-supreme-court-livestream.html
Yeah, Volokh was pretty late on this one.
Chief seems to be most likely culprit as he is going on-and-off-mute (or not going on mute at all) as Justices ask questions and may have forgotten to mute himself when Kagan started.
The other potential culprits are Kagan and Martinez (the advocate) but I find it hard to believe that counsel would use toilet as he was arguing or that Justice would do so as she was asking questions.
What kills me is that it's such a rookie mistake. Anybody who does conference calls knows not to let this happen.
If you are on a conference call from home and aren't the only person in it's home, you can't necessarily prevent it from happening.
Particularly if you have children.
Personally, I'd rather have a loving parent who gets embarrassed than a fascist whose children live in fear of him....
I have issues with Roberts. The fact that one of his kids flushed a toilet at a bad time isn't one of them -- let's get real here....
I'm a professional audio producer. The second recording is, as already noted, of inferior quality. But what we're also hearing is a "noise gate." That's a piece of software (formerly hardware) that can help to remove distracting noise from a piece of spoken audio if a person was recorded, say, on a busy street, or if there's a loud air conditioner running. The noise gate can't actually remove the unwanted sound, but it can be set to make the audio disappear at every moment the person isn't speaking; even small fractions of a second between words. More sophisticated software can actually dig into the spoken moments and remove noises, but what I hear happening on the second recording sounds more to me like a old-fashioned noise gate.
The flush is still in the official audio. It's weirdly choppy, but it's clearly still there. (Contra the Slate article noted elsewhere in comments here -- which is otherwise a very helpful analysis of what is of course a light, fluffy, and fairly silly topic.) I would pretty readily chalk this up to either compression artifacts (it's a shame the Court releases audio as MP3s and not something lossless like FLAC) or to some sort of light, even automatic cleanup that clearly was inadequate to the possibly-unintentional task of removing such noise.
> but I may have listened to these clips far too many times, Zapruder style.
Ya think? Pardon the pun, but who really gives a shit about this? Really.
I'm sure this one was accidental, but perhaps in the future this technique can be used by the justices to indicate that a particular line of argument isn't working.
They have a guy with a hook for that.
And as a last resort, Roberts has a secret button he can press which opens the floor beneath the lawyer and drops him or her into a pool full of hungry sharks (literal sharks, that is).
Why do you think the advocates are so nervous?
Hmmm...what to do with the lawyer who's arguing from home? They probably don't have the technology for that...yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw
Like Rush Limbough's "caller abortions"?
Maybe inappropriate, but you gotta admit they were funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdE83FX-Mto
That's why you want segregated (identified) inputs and a guy working the sound board.
Audio recordings can be changed and https://www.toiletvibe.com/ are more accurate about it.