By Carlos Miller
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.
And even then, Scalia had an issue with him, according to the Hattiesburg American.
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.
One of the photographers at the event told Photography is Not a Crime the following:
Mon is a soft spoken professional who deserved to be treated with respect even if Scalia is a judge. Stopping the speech to yell at a photographer like he was a child is unacceptable.
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 not the first time Scalia has had an issue with the First Amendment in Hattiesburg.
Scalia’s last speaking engagement in Hattiesburg in 2004 turned into a free speech legal battle pitting the Hattiesburg American and the Associated Press against the U.S. Marshals Service. A marshal seized the tape recorders of Hattiesburg American reporter Toni Konz and AP reporter Denise Grones.
Scalia was addressing students at Presbyterian Christian High School at the time.
Both the AP and the American sued the Marshals Service and won. Scalia later apologized to the reporters and their recorders were returned.
According to a Hattiesburg American reader who commented on the article:
This man is a public figure and has problems with being photographed during a public speech? My daughter attended this speech and said he was arrogant, condescending, repetitive and seemed to be completely self-absorbed. Since she has little patience for political rhetoric, she may have been a bit harsh.
Or maybe she was just being honest.
-30-
I am a multimedia journalist who has been fighting a lengthy legal battle after having photographed Miami police against their wishes in Feb. 2007. Please help the fight by donating to my Legal Defense Fund in the top left sidebar, which helps pay for the thousands of dollars I’ve acrued in debt since my arrest. To keep updated on the latest articles, join my networks at Facebook, Twitter and Friendfeed.
Popularity: 1% [?]
13 responses so far ↓
1 Duane Kerzic // Apr 7, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Carlos,
what a busy week. good job.
2 Packratt // Apr 7, 2009 at 5:21 PM
What a weenie! I guess he likes the constitution, except for all those parts in it that he doesn’t like.
Thanks Carlos!
3 wolfy // Apr 7, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Scalia likes to boast that it is his duty to defend the constitution. The problem is that he has no clue what the constitution actually represents. He is a fascist blowhard.
4 ALL BE DAMNED // Apr 7, 2009 at 8:37 PM
As a judge and he doesnt know he is breaking the law by refusing to alow people to take picturs IN A PUBLIC auditorium HMMMM smells fishy to me……. i think i will go take his picture from the street as he walks into the court house and see what he does then ……bah no i wont i am to far away any way I hope some does tork him off to the point he loses his job because he didnt have the common since to keep his mouth shut….
5 Matt Blackheart // Apr 7, 2009 at 11:50 PM
As a member sitting very close to the stage, the above described incident is far from the truth. I believe if one is going articulate a story, one should have the facts. Here are the facts. The above mentioned photographer took pictures as he sat on the front row; moving back and forth long the front row and blocking the view of many who strained to see the Justice, this photographing took place the entire half of the Justice’s speech, roughly thirty minutes. It was at this point, Justice Scalia stated “Could we stop the photos,please?” Who could blame him? Surely after 30 minutes of picture taking, enough photos had been taken to supply many news outlets. And, the Justice did ask in a polite manner. After all, the speech was intended for the audience, mostly college students, for whom it was a required chapel assembly. Clearly the photographer showed bad manners in continuing to take pictures after the “normal ten minutes” usually allotted for media at “high profile events.” It’s a shame the Hattiesburg-American and other media are still “smarting” over an incident that took place several years ago.
6 Carlos Miller // Apr 8, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Matt,
If they wanted to give only ten minutes to photographers, they should have planned that in advance, just like they did by banning video cameras, which screams censorship.
He is a public figure after all, so why shouldn’t we be able to film the speech?
Since they didn’t establish an allotted time before hand, then the photographers are going to continue snapping photos because that is their job.
A man in his position should just deal with it, even if it might be annoying. Especially when he’s praising the Constitution.
7 Duane Kerzic // Apr 8, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Matt,
It’s not clear to me. You were in the audience on Apr. 6, 2009 or you were in the audience 3 years ago?
This article is about what happened yesterday not 3 years ago.
8 Joel Lawson // Apr 8, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Matt Blackheart wrote: “Surely after 30 minutes of picture taking, enough photos had been taken to supply many news outlets.”
Are you the photographer’s editor, Matt?
It is the photographer’s job, not anyone else’s, to determine what shots she/he would like to obtain. It is the event organizer’s job to provide access and perhaps other arrangements to ensure media can do their jobs, while ensuring the speaker and audience have a successful event. The fact that a few members of the audience maybe had to rubber neck differently now and then to see a VIP, because a photographer was doing her/his job, does not rise to the need for the speaker, let alone a Supreme Court Justice, to lash out verbally from the podium. This less-than-becoming peevishness has become expectable, however, from Justice Scalia.
9 Chris Mallory // Apr 8, 2009 at 2:31 PM
This doesn’t appear to be as much of a free speech issue as it is a property rights issue. From every thing I can find, WCU is a private university, not public. A private entity should be able to restrict any photography or recording they wish. This isn’t to defend Scalia, but property rights are just as important as speech rights.
10 Bugs // Apr 8, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Well, how about posting a big sign at the entrance saying “No Video or Still Photography Allowed?” Half the problem these days is that photographers have to guess what the rules are at each location they work in. That’s because a) the people in charge haven’t bothered to make any rules, or b) the people who enforce the rules don’t know what they are, or c) the rules aren’t communicated to the people who are supposed to follow them. If Scalia’s personal policy is to avoid photographers, then he should make sure everyone knows that.
11 Eric // Apr 8, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Some answers
Chris- Media was invited to the event by the University. At no point did WCU official ask any photographer to stop. The Student worker for pr stopped shooting after Scalia addressed Mon. This is WCU’s property and not Scalia’s the University is always excited when they can have high profile guest speakers and media coverage since most events of this nature occur across town.
(WCU is small Christian university in a town dominated by the campus of the University of Southern Mississippi)
Matt-The reason Mon had to shoot stills for 30 minutes was to fill a 1:30 VOT slot on the 5,6,10 news that normally would have been video . The station could have easily told administration that they were not going to cover the event which would have in turn hurt the university.
Having five photos in a slide show with an anchor talking is not going to hold the attention of the viewer who is expecting to see video so Mon did his job and shot many frames.
10 minutes rules are normally only for concerts.
The no video issue seems to stem from the speeches that Scalia gives. From a political standpoint I assume he believes that the video would be used against him.
12 Fix the Judicial! // Apr 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Yes, the press will continue to ‘smart’ (as Matt Blackheart calls it) over incidents several years ago when those incidents intrude on our right to freedoms that so many have died for.
No public figure has the right to say how the 1st amendment can be used, in their opinion. Now, if that justice would like to hear the case in court and give his opinion along with the other justices, maybe things will be different. In any case, this Scalia character needs to be removed from his post.
Somehow, we need to fix this mockery of a judicial system we have and hold these people accountable for what they do. Taking personal property and holding people against their will and later calling it a ‘misunderstanding’ is not acceptable. If anyone else does this, its a crime, even a felony. Why should a guy in a black robe be treated any differently? It’s time we limit their lengh of office to a few years to prevent their continued tyranny from taking place. The great experiment has failed and continues to do so.
The Supreme Court Justices need a limit to their term of office!
13 Duane Kerzic // Apr 13, 2009 at 2:33 PM
I can see a point to limiting the term of Supreme Court Justices in today’s world. It’s similar to the Social Security problem. When the constitution was writen very few people lived to age 70. So if someone was appointed around age 45 it was assumed that would serve about 20 years at most.
Today its routine for people to live past 70. So these lifetime appointments have grown from between 10-20 years to be between 20-30 years. Clearly not what the founders had in mind. A term limit of about 16, twice that of a president, years would still insure political independence yet assure a resonable rate of the changing of the guard at the court.
Remember when the constitution was written there also wasn’t a term limit on the presidency. Most people elected to the office accepted that two terms was enough for any one man however. It wasn’t till the last century that the rules were changed.
Leave a Comment