I want my constitution back!

[mdlbear]

(from catsittingstill) http://nytimes.com/2004/04/12/opinion/12HERB.html (reg required)

Apparently two reporters attending a speech by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at a local high school had their recordings of the speech confiscated. If true (it's an op-ed piece and I haven't checked it out independently), this would be very bad.

Comments

[asavitzk.livejournal.com]

Depends. Until I read more I'll reserve judgement (and I haven't read anything since I refuse to register to nytimes.com).

The thing is, this could really be nothing. Speeches and performances are given all the time that are copyrighted and thus, you're not allowed to record it. Sure, exceptions are sometimes made for the media so they can review their recordings for their reports, but they don't have to be. I know if I were a reporter I'd have a really hard time going to a show on Broadway and recording it.

Now granted, a speech by a SCJ is not the same as a Broadway show, but nevertheless, it can be copyrighted and they can enforce that.

On the other hand, I'm so jaded at this point that I wouldn't be surprised if it really was for other, less innocent reasons.

[janetmiles.livejournal.com]

My understanding (which could be wrong) is that Scalia routinely refuses to allow the press to attend his speeches (http://miva.jacksonsun.com/miva/cgi-bin/miva?OPINION/opinion_story.mv+link=200404126035278).

[asavitzk.livejournal.com]

Wow. That is pretty crazy.

[eleccham.livejournal.com]

*erk*

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Scalia is a fruitcake -- but an extremely powerful one. If only he weren't on the Supreme Court. Then again, he isn't Posner . . . so we all have something to be grateful for.

[jilara.livejournal.com]

The legal question could be whether it comes under fair use. Even Martin Luther King's speeches (which are copyright by the family) allow minor "fair use" as long as it's not quoted extensively or parts rebroadcast without proper permissions. (On the other hand, maybe Scalia follows the Scientology precedent.)Gee, sounds like a case for the Supreme Court...(which irony isn't really funny...)