Following the secrecy trail of U.S. Justice Antonin Scalia, we see he moseyed Wednesday to the University of Montana to give a public speech, and forced out any media with cameras or video, according to the Montana Kaiman. Scalia also prohibited cameras at a public speech, titled “Freedom and the Rule of Law,” at Utah State University on Sept. 15 (see below). What gets my goat is that the universities actually go along with his demands. When journalists showed up with cameras, they were kicked out. Kudos to Ian Marquand, a KPAX-TV reporter, president of the Montana SPJ chapter and former SPJ FOI Committee chair, who e-mailed local media urging them to boycott the lecture (at least KPAX and KGVO radio agreed).

As many of you know, Scalia has worked hard over the years to undermine freedom of information. He advocated against the Freedom of Information Act, and in 1982, as a law professor, wrote in the journal Regulation (March/April, pp. 15-19) that FOIA has “greatly burdened investigative agencies and the courts,” and provides a “free lunch” for people who are “motivated by no more than idle curiousity.” Scalia chastises “do-it-yourself oversight by the public and its surrogate, the press,” suggesting that FOIA rarely leads to significant public revelations, and that there is no need for the law when regulatory agencies are making sure everything is fine. Yeah, we can trust those regulatory agencies and the system of checks and balances (as long as we have $700 billion handy to hand over every now and then).

The proposal to bail out the financial industry with up to $700 billion in our money provides little accountability and fosters secrecy, including even from the courts. Section 8 of the Legislative Proposal for Treasury Authority to Purchase Mortgage-Related Assets allows the Treasury Secretary to avoid scrutiny or accountability from the courts.

Secrecy and lack of accountability are what got us in this mess in the first place. Secret companies making secret deals encouraged greed and little public accountability. Now the government wants to act the same way? With our money? That’s outrageous!

Let’s put this in a little perspective. They want to use up to $700 billion of our money to help these private financial institutions. Imagine winning the $1 million lottery. Now imagine winning the lottery 700,000 more times. That’s how much money we’re talking about. That’s more than $2,000 for every man, woman and child in our country. Now, regardless of whether it’s likely to work or not – it might – I would still like to make sure those who have this kind of power are accountable in case it doesn’t work.

If the government is going to front that kind of money – our money – then I think we ought to be able to know what they are doing with it and hold them accountable if they further mess things up. We at SPJ aren’t the only ones concerned. A broad range of groups are alarmed at this secrecy, including the American Library Association, National Taxpayers Union, and Liberty Coalition. Stand up and fight for transparency and accountability.

Contact your U.S. senator and representative and urge them to strike section 8 and Section 2(b)2 (provides total authority to the secretary “without limitation”) from this proposal. It’s our money, it’s our business!

The St. Paul, Minn., mayor announced today that the city won’t prosecute journalists who were cited at the Republic National Convention for “presence at an unlawful assembly,” according to a story by the Minnesota Independent. It is estimated that at least 40 people cited for the misdemeanor during the protests were journalists covering the protests. Good for St. Paul.

What will be interesting is seeing who the city deems a journalist – is a blogger covering the protests a journalist? According to a statement by the mayor’s office, the city acknowledges that because of “the growing media profession in print, broadcast and the Internet, the city attorney’s office will use a broad definition and verification to identify journalists who were caught up in mass arrests during the convention.”

Wednesday, Sept. 17, was official federal Constitution Day, where Congress requires teachers (such as myself) to teach about the U.S. Constitution. Well, I taught two classes (public affairs reporting and computer-assisted reporting at the University of Arizona) and I didn’t mention a thing about the Constitution in class today, so I must have violated the law by not speaking out about what the government wanted me to talk about. Instead, I talked about free speech, free press and questioning the government. Now it is Sept. 18 and I will continue to teach students about the Constitution, most importantly the First Amendment:

“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.”

Let us keep vigilant to protect this most sacred compact between the people and their government. The Constitution. The First Amendment. Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press.

As reported by SPJ member Penny Byrne, when Associate Justice Antonin Scalia spoke at Utah State University recently, the university acceded to his demand that no television cameras be allowed to film his speech, which was open to the public. This meant that USU’s video journalists were denied the right to cover the biggest story on campus this year because Scalia objected to the tools of their profession for some unknown reason.
This is appalling on two levels. First, Scalia purports to be a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution. So what doesn’t he understand about the prohibition on abridging press freedom as written in the Bill of Rights? The language is straightforward. Telling one group of reporters that they cannot report because they happen to use a video camera instead of a notepad or microphone is discriminatory. This is not the first time Scalia has done this. At another appearance on the east coast, reporters were forced to delete digital recordings of his speech or face arrest.
But USU doesn’t get off blameless either. The university is a public institution, and one dedicated to the open exchange of information. It should have told Scalia that it would not put any restrictions on journalists wanting to cover the speech. It may have meant losing Scalia as a speaker, but it’s better to stand on constitutional principle than to let a petulant speaker run roughshod over the First Amendment.

Today the Arizona Supreme Court announced changes to rules governing cameras in the courtroom, making it more difficult for judges to ban cameras willy-nilly. The changes, effective Jan. 1, 2009, require a trial judge to make written findings if he or she prohibits camera coverage and require the judge to state that camera coverage poses a likelihood of harm to the trial. Also, the new rules allow people to appeal camera bans to the Court of Appeals.

This is a great court rule change, fought hard by media law attorney David Bodney, KPNX-TV, and others in the state. Cameras can still be banned for good reasons, but those reasons have to be put in writing, making the judge think a little before blocking out visual journalists of trials. For more information, see a copy of the rule amendments.

As The New York Times reported Sunday, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has taken keeping people in the dark to an all-time low, using personal e-mail accounts to avoid public scrutiny of their actions.
As the Times recounted:

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.

Denver investigative television reporter Brian Maass spoke out at a National Press Club forum Tuesday in Denver, pointing out that media companies appear to be less willing to push for access to public records, and government officials are figuring that out as the financial strength of newspapers weaken. The government has gotten “pretty canny in knowing” that with financial pressures “there’s less fight in the media to battle for information,” Maass said in a summary of the forum.

Is this true at your media organization? Are media companies less willing to go to court to get public records? Anecdotally it seems to be the case, although I haven’t seen any studies that show a decrease in legal spending. If it’s true, we’re in trouble. At the very least, we need to continue for stronger laws that enable requesters to get attorney fees (and penalties) if they win in court against an agency. Some states have pretty good laws on that, and FOIA now includes such a provision, but we need better.

Check out a new documentary about national security and secrecy that’s gotten some good reviews, starting this month in selected cities.

“Secrecy,” by Peter Galison and Robb Moss, apparently covers how secrecy saves lives in some ways, but also corrupts and derails democracy. I haven’t seen it yet, but the description and reviews look good. It will be showing this month in New York, Traverse City (Mich.), Cambridge and Hilo (Hawaii). In October it will be screened in Milwaukee, Seattle, Silver Spring, Los Angeles, Austin, Denver, San Francisco and Albuquerque. In November it will be shown in Columbus, Lincoln (Neb.), Honolulu and St. Louis.

If you, like me, don’t live in any of those cities, grab some microwave popcorn and have fun with these online Flash productions (if you know of others, send me the link at cuillier@email.arizona.edu!):

• Do you suffer from Congressional Data Frustration (CVF)? Try Sunlightalinazinosec! September 2007, Sunlight Foundation
• Democracy in Jeopardy
  2007, OpenTheGovernment.org
• Are we Safer in the Dark?
  2006, OpenTheGovernment.org
• (Classified) clip about (classified)
  2007, The Onion
• Save the e-mail records from deletion!
  2007, Missouri Democratic Party

The Smithsonian Institution is opposed to an effort by Congress to make it subject to federal FOIA, saying that transparency might inhibit private fund-raising. In an Associated Press story, chief executive G. Wayne Clough argues that the institution, which was created by Congress, might scare off private donors if the agency is subject to FOIA. Clough portrays the agency as some private entity, even though 70 percent of its $1 billion budget comes from taxpayers. Under that argument, most public universities would be able to work in secret because of the shrinking public tax subsidy of higher education and push to acquire donors and grants.

Congress should pass the Open and Transparent Smithsonian Act of 2008 (S. 3276) and stop letting an important taxpayer-funded government agency continue to hide behind an excuse that doesn’t fly in other parts of government.