1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Come on, Justice Kennedy, you're better than that

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by WaylonJennings, Nov 11, 2009.

  1. Speaks at a Manhattan high school. Says he must pre-approve story written by the school newspaper. Newspaper complies:


    I'm also disappointed in the student newspaper for declining comment, though I'm sure that has everything to do with a freaked out adviser, principal, superintendent, etc., etc.

    Also, appropos of nothing, loved the portion of the Blackwater story today in the Times whre Gary Jackson, "When reached, Gary Jackson criticized the New York Times, then said, "I don't care what you print."

    If ever there was a time when I would have loved to have heard the actual quote ...
  2. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Someone needs to remind the good justice about prior restraint.
  3. Liut

    Liut Active Member

    Scalia had a flunky confiscate a Hattiesburg American reporter's tape recorder a few years back. It was a public event.
  4. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    Not much else could be expected from Fat Tony.
  5. albert77

    albert77 Well-Known Member

    And that came back to bite Scalia in the ass big time. Nobody remembers what he talked about, only that he tried to strongarm a reporter and ended up having to publicly apologize.
  6. Though I'm going to guess it had something to do with adhering to the "framers' intent."
  7. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    The last time a student interviewed Justice Thomas, he confiscated her shirt and bra...
  8. Kato

    Kato Active Member

    I'd be curious to know whether these demands come directly from the justice or if their staff/handlers set this all up as to not bother him. I found it interesting in the article that it's common for supreme court justices to close public speeches to the press:

    "It is not unusual for Supreme Court justices to exclude the press entirely from public appearances. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, for instance, spoke to more than 1,000 people at Yale Law School last month in an off-the-record session that was closed to the news media."

    Wow. If they're public events, whether in a public venue or even one for which tickets must be purchased, they're should be fair game for anyone who wants to "cover" it, whether it's for a newspaper, a student paper, a blog, twitter, radio, whatever.

    Freedom of the press doesn't just apply to media employees who are granted special access, does it?
  9. J-School Blue

    J-School Blue Member

    Schools aren't entirely public spaces. Yale Law School can close a speaking appearance if they want to (I don't think they should when they have a high-profile figure like a Supreme Court justice speaking there, but they can).

    Which doesn't make the Kennedy thing any less fucked up, as he has zero say in how the high school newspaper conducts itself. It seems bizarre that he or his flunkies would even bother with this. The bad press is more trouble than whatever errors some 16-year-old might make.
  10. Kato

    Kato Active Member

    I don't disagree with that. That was just the example the Times used. Still, 1,000 people? If it was invite-only, that's understandable. But does a Supreme Court justice really think she/he can say something to 1,000 people "off the record" and have it stay in a vacuum?

    Whenever I read stories like these, it scares me because it makes the justices seem like the most closed-off out-of-touch people in America.
  11. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    The justices should go away. They are worthless to society and this makes me want to advocate for a new system of government.
  12. Oh, please. The concept of judicial supremacy isn't infallible. I understand that. Other countries, even Democratic ones, utilize the courts much differently than us. The main argument against it is that if the legislative or executive stretches the Constitution beyond its limits, then the people will remove that person through the political process.

    But "worthless to society"? They should just "go away"? You're going to have to come stronger than that if you're advocating tossing away one of the three branches.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page