I’ve enjoyed reading about Fordham university law professor, Joel Reidenberg‘s recent class assignment. Basically, Justice Scalia recently scoffed at privacy protections on the internet. So Reidenberg had has class gather a bunch of information about Scalia and send the 15-page dossier to Scalia himself. “Among its contents are Nino’s home address, his home phone number, [his home value], the movies he likes, his food preferences, his wife’s personal e-mail address, and photos of his lovely grandchildren.” Scalia flipped out. Others have thought through this exchange better than I, and Reidenberg has responded to Scalia. Odd that Scalia thinks privacy protections are “silly” and yet loses it when someone accesses public data about him.
-
Pages
-
Categories
- asa meetings
- ask a scatterbrain
- books
- Canada
- contest
- cryptic
- dialogues
- disarray
- dork
- economics
- family
- fun
- gender
- health
- help wanted
- inequality
- internet
- kids
- LGBT
- meta
- misadventures
- music
- online wonders
- personal
- politics
- procrastination
- professional
- race
- religion
- science
- sexualities
- sports
- students
- teaching
- too much information
- travel
- Uncategorized
- what does this have to do w/ org theory?
- work and family
- writing
-
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
4 Comments
Five years ago, an NYU Law student asked Scalia (who was giving a talk on campus) whether he sodomizes his wife — Scalia believing that the government has every right to ask such questions of the student, who’s gay. So this is nothing new to Scalia, though predictably, he flips out every time (as did the NYU Law administration in that instance).
I totally forgot about this. You can see an explanation for why the student did this here: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050502/berndt
You could not have come up with a better title for this post. This is, indeed, classic.
I don’t agree with Scalia, but I don’t think he “flipped out” or “lost it” in response to the dossier. All he said was this was legal but showed very poor judgment. This is a pretty mild retort by any standard, but especially in view of the sharp tone of many of his dissents.
I also don’t think it’s true that he “lost it” in response to the question about whether he sodomizes his wife. From an eye witness account, it looks like he just paused and said he’s not going to answer that, and moved onto the next question. Even though the person kept asking the question over and over again, the eyewitness account only indicated that he just kept trying to go on to the next question. He then answered other questions for another half hour. I wouldn’t say that’s losing it at all — that’s just about the most coolheaded response I could imagine.
http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/04/judicial_sighta_3.html
One Trackback
[...] 5, 2009 by John Shamus at Scatterplot has posted another reminder that information on the internet is not private. This time, Justice [...]