http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20040410/localnews/205887.html
justice scalia is taking a lot of flak for what sounds to me to be a voluntary forfeiture by a press agent. this article, illustrative of most others on the topic, is filled with puffy sounding language that is, for the most part, uninformed.
For example: "We are appalled at this lapse in respect for the nation's founding principles,"
was our nation really founded on the bedrock principle of people having the right to tape record whatever they want, whenever they want? (tape recorders weren't invented in 1776, nor had they been invented by 1789. so im pretty sure that this alleged right of the people to have tape recorders wherever they want wasn't a "founding principle" of either the drafters or ratifiers.)
whats more, the author here seems to be hanging his hat on the first amendment. the first amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
justice scalia did not prohibit reporters from covering his speech and he didn't forbid them from reporting on it. contrary to what seems to be widespread belief in the media, the first amendment doesn't guarantee their right to run a tape recorder wherever they please. it sounds to me that what justice scalia did was ask a us marshal to deliver the message "erase it or leave." what would have happened if the reporter didn't acquiese to the request? the worst that would have happened is that he would have been ejected from the event. it seems pretty clear to me that your admission to most any event can be conditioned on your abiding by certain rules. (just try taking a video camera into a movie theater sometime.)
what strikes me as particularly troubling about this comment is that its genericness lends itself to a potential (or seeming) hypocricy - couldn't the same comment be used to support an argument on the opposite side? for instance, if a state were to pass a law saying that effective immediately all transactions with state agencies would be tape recorded, wouldn't this same newsreporter be sure to crank out an article boldly opining, "We are appalled at this lapse in respect for the nation's founding principles!"