The Los Angeles Times appears to be resuming its campaign of unfair coverage of Justice Antonin Scalia.

In a story published yesterday, the Times accused Justice Scalia of illegally ordering a deputy U.S. Marshal to seize and erase two reporters’ audiotaped recordings of a Scalia speech. While the deputy did indeed take this action, the U.S. Marshals Service has explicitly denied that Justice Scalia ordered the deputy to seize or erase the tapes. This denial was reported in the Washington Post yesterday, but is curiously absent from yesterday’s L.A. Times story — a story that repeatedly asserted that Scalia ordered the deputy’s action.

This is highly suspicious, especially in light of the fact that the Times has run several previous stories on Scalia that were chock-full of inaccuracies (for examples, see my posts here and here).

I can just imagine Justice Scalia picking up yesterday’s L.A. Times and reading this article. He must have thought to himself: will this paper ever stop telling lies about me?

The accusations by the Times relate to an incident that occurred at a speech given by Justice Scalia in Mississippi last Wednesday. Justice Scalia has a standing request that audience members not tape his speeches given in private settings — a request that legal experts say is perfectly permissible. During a question-and-answer session after the speech, a deputy U.S. Marshal approached two reporters who were audiotaping the event. The deputy confiscated and erased the two audiotaped recordings.

Several legal experts have criticized the deputy’s action, asserting that it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment and of federal statutory law. Experts note that, while Scalia’s no-taping policy is legally valid, the deputy’s method of enforcing the policy was not. There were other ways to enforce the request that would have been legally permissible. For example, reporters who refuse to abide by Justice Scalia’s policy can be asked to leave.

The Washington Post yesterday quoted David Turner, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals Service, as saying:

Justice Scalia did not instruct the deputy to take that action.

No mention of Mr. Turner’s statement appeared in the L.A. Times yesterday (or today, for that matter). Nevertheless, the L.A. Times story yesterday repeatedly asserts, with increasing confidence, that Justice Scalia personally ordered the confiscation and erasure of the tapes.

The story is authored by David Savage, the co-author of several recent factually challenged stories about Scalia. The headline reads: “Scalia’s Tape Tactics at Issue.” The subhead reads: “Experts question legal basis for confiscation — apparently on justice’s orders — of recordings.” And the lede sentence reads:

First Amendment experts on Thursday questioned the legal basis for a deputy U.S. marshal — apparently acting on the orders of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — to confiscate and erase recordings made by two reporters invited to hear the justice speak at a high school gym.

Savage soon drops the qualifier “apparently,” and for the rest of the story uses phrases such as “Scalia’s actions” to refer to the confiscation and erasure of the tapes:

[Local reporter Antoinette] Konz said she was surprised by Scalia’s actions, since she had met him four years ago when he gave a speech at a local college where she was a student.

. . . .

Experts in 1st Amendment law say it is generally understood that officials — including judges — cannot confiscate or destroy notes or records that journalists obtain in public events.

. . . .

[Law professor Jane] Kirtley also said the action by Scalia and the marshal appeared to violate the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 . . .

. . . .

[Law professor and former ACLU legal director Burt] Neuborne said he was disappointed by Scalia’s action in light of his past decisions upholding the 1st Amendment. “This is very surprising coming from him, since he has a good grasp of the 1st Amendment,” Neuborne said. “This doesn’t live up to the ideals of the 1st Amendment. He should know he can’t use a U.S. marshal as a private police force to enforce his will.”

It is completely irresponsible for Savage to repeatedly assert that Scalia personally ordered the deputy’s actions, without telling Times readers that the U.S. Marshals Service has specifically denied that very assertion. The Times cannot plausibly claim that it couldn’t have learned this fact in time. After all, the Washington Post — which operates on Eastern time and presumably has a deadline three hours earlier that that of the Times — was able to include that quote in its story. Moreover, the Times today runs an AP dispatch on the controversy, and still fails to include the U.S. Marshals Service statement.

The evidence I have seen indicates that the marshal acted on her own. Remember: the incident happened near the end of the event, during a question-and-answer session. If Scalia had ordered the deputy to seize and erase the tapes, presumably the audience members would have seen him pause during his remarks and whisper something to the deputy marshal. I have seen no indication of this whatsoever in the news reporting I have seen.

If Savage has some basis for his assertion that Scalia ordered the deputy’s actions, he should tell us what that is. It sure as hell doesn’t show up in his story. I have written a letter to the Reader’s Representative about this. I’ll let you know what response I get.