A Case Study For Antonin Scalia

(And I also posted here.)

This story is probably a little old at this point, but I think it deserves comment based on this article in the New York Times today.

It turns out that some law students at Fordham University, in a study of how information can be obtained online about famous people in particular (and probably many other people besides), compiled a dossier of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia; the story provides the following details…

Why Justice Scalia? Well, the class had been discussing his recent dismissive comments about Internet privacy concerns at a conference. His summation, as reported by The Associated Press: “Every single datum about my life is private? That’s silly.”

A gauntlet of sorts had been thrown down — though (class) Professor (Joel R.) Reidenberg said in an interview that he would disagree with that interpretation. The assignment, he said, was “not about embarrassing anyone, not about targeting Scalia in the sense of choosing him because of anything about his work on the court.” (He was also quick to point out that the year before, the assignment focused on himself.)

And as a result…

…the class managed to create a dossier of 15 pages, Professor Reidenberg reported to a conference on privacy at Fordham, that included the justice’s home address and home phone number, his wife’s personal e-mail address and the TV shows and food he prefers.

How could there not be an aspect of poetic justice in creating the dossier: Still think the issue is “silly,” your honor? Teaching moments, after all, are not only for students.

The dossier was never intended to be made public (though, the professor points out, since the law protects only material collected to assess a job applicant, it could have been) and Justice Scalia was never supposed to know about the assignment, much the way many of us are blithely unaware about what can be discovered about ourselves online.

Oh, but Scalia did find out. And his reaction?

“I stand by my remark at the Institute of American and Talmudic Law conference that it is silly to think that every single datum about my life is private. I was referring, of course, to whether every single datum about my life deserves privacy protection in law.

“It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg’s exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any.”

Ooooh, sounds like someone is having a hissy fit!

Well, I guess this is what you can expect from a jurist who states that he believes that individuals should be protected against unlawful search and seizure here, though he ruled here that he had no problem with police not bothering to knock before they busted down a door to seize drugs and a gun from an individual in Michigan.

And I guess this is also what you would expect from a judge who defends the idiotic dictum of the Bushco FCC’s sanctions against “fleeting expletives” here, though if Scalia were to let a bad word slip in a public appearance, we wouldn’t know of it since he doesn’t want his speeches covered (resulting in an AP lawsuit when a U.S. Marshal destroyed a recording of a Scalia speech), to say nothing of banning cameras in courtrooms – uh, who the hell does this guy think he is to try and ban coverage of his appearances? - I know the answer, but I'm still disposed to ask the question).

Perhaps Scalia chafed at this “teachable moment” because, he was “schooled” by those who may one day sit in judgment of his legacy in the name of comforting those who suffer no affliction and inflicting harm on those who sought a legal remedy from him as a last resort.

(And by the way, why do I get the feeling that Scalia’s fingerprints were all over this one?)

Update 8/19/09: "Embarrassing" indeed, but not the way Scalia means I'm sure (here).