Justice Scalia Responds to Fordham Privacy Invasion!
Last week, we wrote about the Fordham law professor who assigned his information privacy law class to compile a dossier on Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
The professor had chosen Scalia as the target for privacy invasion because of the Justice’s remarks at a January conference organized by the Institute of American and Talmudic Law. Scalia’s views on the privacy of personal information online are summed up nicely by this quote:
“Every single datum about my life is private? That’s silly,” Scalia [said].
(And his views are summed up at greater length here by privacy expert and GW Law Professor Dan Solove.)
Professor Joel Reidenberg and his class now have a 15-page dossier on Scalia, including his home address, the value of his home, his home phone number, the movies he likes, his food preferences, his wife’s personal e-mail address, and “photos of his lovely grandchildren.”
We checked in with the Justice to see how he felt about his online information being aggregated and mined by the professor and his 15 students.
Scalia was far from pleased (though we were pleased that a Supreme Court Justice would honor Above The Law with a response). Check out his reply to us, after the jump.
Here is Justice Scalia’s response, in all its scathing glory:
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.
Reidenberg may have terrible judgment, but it’s fairly impressive he managed to get bench-slapped by One First Street from a classroom at Fordham Law School.
Earlier: What Fordham Knows About Justice Scalia
Justice Scalia’s Conception of Privacy [Concurring Opinions]
UPDATE: Dan Solove, who is one of the legal establishment’s foremost thinkers about privacy issues, has penned a response to this post over at Concurring Opinions: Justice Scalia’s Dossier: Interesting Issues about Privacy and Ethics.
(191) Comments
Comments
FIRST!
Scalia went on to add: "You really want to mess with a Scalia in NY?"
Kudos to Prof. Reidenberg for showing up the hypocrisy in the Justice Scalia's thesis. Does JS think that 100% of the public is incapable of "poor judgment"?
Ouch.
"Reidenberg may have terrible judgment, but it's fairly impressive he managed to get bench-slapped by One First Street from a classroom at Fordham Law School."
Is it really impressive to be a petty nuisance, meddlesome enough to warrant the response produced?
if his identity was used to mess up his credit, i bet his opinion on the matter would change drastically
Pure Awesomeness. Fordham Law has risen in my esteem.
3, Your statement makes absolutely no sense.
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that if Justice Scalia had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and relied on such expectation to his detriment, he may have a promissory estoppel claim here. Restatement Section 90 seems applicable.
I've never know professors of law to show much common sense.
9 - was that stupidity supposed to be a joke?
I think it is great that Scalia stood his ground.
The hoagie I just ate was thiisss big.....
One wonders if Justice Scalia has ever met a "criminal." Criminals are individuals with "abominably poor judgment" who may decide to use personal information to steal identities, con, blackmail, harass, etc. Someone should tell Scalia that as a general matter most laws are designed to protect us from the "abominably poor judgment" of others.
Comment removed by moderator.
I think Scalia's response was bangin...he's exactly right. People need to stop conflating law with ethics...
Also, I bet it helped the Fordham law prof in finding all his info that he's a major public figure! Good luck trying to find MY shit hahaha!
(just kidding my home address, e-mail etc are all on facebook)
Minus ten points for failing to call Fordham a TTT in that e-mail.
Ditto 8.
Scalia = The SMU of the Supreme Court
15 - you are a sad, miserable person.
I'm with Scalia, J., on this one. None of the information collected by the class is anything that, as a legal matter, should be deemed private. Your address and home value? Come on...that is and always has been information of public record. Was the prof trying to claim that this kind of info should be private? I don't get it. It does seem like poor judgment to me to piss off a SctJ without a good reason.
Kudos to ATL for getting a response from him!
I had Reidenberg for IP at Fordham. He was awesome. Scalia is just pissed that he got pwned.
9 - you're on to something there. i think i read a 7th circuit case once about rstmt 90 going hand-in-hand with the fourth amendment in civil litigation. i think if scalia brought his claim under 1983 it would pass mtd.
I'm glad a Justice of the United States Supreme Court has both the time and inclination to respond to something like this. Forget getting underneath their robes, this one really got under his skin. This could usher in a cottage industry of Scalia-baiting. Perhaps ATL could solicit Justice Scalia's views on various matters on a daily basis.
This is exactly why I nominated him for Chief Justice when Rehnquist died.
I think this whole 'Restatement 90' schtick is hilarious and it cracks me up every time. Screw the haters.
Kudos to ATL for the Scalia response, although the post is a little too excited to receive it. You guys should have played it a little cooler.
Scalia is an idiot. Privacy law is needed because we can't rely on ethics to prevent people from invading our privacy. Reidenberg proved the point, and I say wins this round.
Has ATL asked Reidenberg for a response?
Oh God. Scalia has been pwned by Fordham. Collection agencies, lazy credit services, telemarketers, Nigerian Princes, and other data abusers are not going to quit their trades for fear of Justice Scalia's moral opprobrium. Highlighting this fact was the point of the project. Scalia's response makes their point.
Let's compile a dossier on Professor Reidenberg's private information, post it, and see how he likes it.
@15= Scalia
Soooooooo, is somebody gona delete 15 or what?
Not quite sure where the hypocrisy is... Did anyone ask Scalia if the information should be protected by statute? There's a difference between a constitutional right and a statutory right... Do you really think that information like your email address is protected by the Constitution? Raise your hand if your on Facebook? Now put them down... you have no privacy to protect...
Congratulations to Prof. Reitenberg for doing something nasty to a man he doesn't like! Goooo - legal academia!
Not quite sure where the hypocrisy is... Did anyone ask Scalia if the information should be protected by statute? There's a difference between a constitutional right and a statutory right... Do you really think that information like your email address or your food preferences is protected by the Constitution? Raise your hand if your on Facebook? Now put them down... you have no privacy to protect...
15 -
Only a complete misanthropic idiot would call a woman the "C" word, and spell it out, call a gay man the "F" word, and spell it out, but use a * when calling a black man the "N" word. It must have been difficult to do all that typing with your knuckles.
Reidenberg's cell # is (702)420-1234
Any idiot could find the same info about anyone, especially a public figure. What a waste of time. Typical law professor BS.
Removal of comments = perpetuation of swine flu
Who is Gon Jalt?
Hmm. What's a "Flip"? Really - I have never heard this before, though I assume it's some sort of anti-gay slur, perhaps implying one's status as a bottom.
Also, someone should indeed delete that comment.
This is truthfully one of the best articles I have read on ATL in quite a while.
29: But that's exactly the point. It's easy for Scalia to minimize privacy law--until photos of his own grandkids that are being viewed. Similarly, it's easy for the left wing of the court to say that gov't taking land for what is essentially private use is just fine--until it's Justice Souter's home in N.H. that is the target.
This is great. Lat should be impressed by your work when he comes back from vacay!
Great post!
I would like some info please.
I think 15 forgot to sign in as Fugitive from Justice. (See USNWR 17-28 open thread if you don't know what I'm talking about).
scalia, pwning as per usual.
Scalia RESPONDED to ATL? Unreal!!
Ban 15. And Scalia's right, but, he sullied his own argument with his butthurt invective at the end. He's such a drama queen.
Scalia = SC FLIP
Lay off Scalia. He's my guy. He made me President.
I don't often like Scalia's opinion - but you have to hand it to the guy, he's a genius.
This is the difference between theory and practice. Scalia was concerned with theory, and practice has come back to bite him in the ass. He is a hypocrite and his opinions are foolhardy.
47 is right on all accounts. More people would take Scalia seriously if he wasn't such a cry-baby douche all the time.
49 - No man. That was O'Connor.
hahaha. Scalia is horrible, but his reply is brilliant.
The "hypocrisy" argument here is ridiculous. It would have been valid if Scalia had *backed away* from his prior statement. But he specifically affirmed it. Surely, 51 (and his fellow mouth-breathers), are not conflating Scalia's criticism of a practice with a belief that such practice should be illegal. You know, because only a fevered idiot could make such a rudimentary logical mistake...
Where does Scalia get off pntificating about judgment. It's not like he's shown very good judgment since Lawrence v. Texas.
Harriet would have been a great Associate Supreme Court Justice. She and CJ Nino could've taught the rest of them a thing or two.
Dubya, your shtick is lame and unfunny. Leave now.
40,
It's also easy for those who disagree with the Justices to personally harass them for making difficult decisions in constitutional law rather than addressing their arguments on an intellectual level.
Scalia vs Mystal
No Holds Barred Eating Contest Smack Down
Tonight at the Blimpies Midtown
Free Admission to all Flips & Twinks
35 - it's because he's a scared little white boy afraid some big, bad black person will hunt him down and beat the shit out of him if he spells it out.
So he takes his aggression out on those he thinks he can overpower: women and gay men.
Reidenberg pawned him.
I also had Reidenberg for Contracts - great guy and he made his point.
Hello - the legal system does legislate ethical/moral behavior....its just a question of when they decide to butt in versus not - clearly Scalia chooses to butt in based on his own arbitrary system of beliefs. HIs views are not sancrosant - conservative student lemmings.
36- 702 area code is Las Vegas - why would that be his cell?
If the number in 36 is true, I hope it is not deleted. Because, you know, the whole "no right to privacy on internet" thing...
16: but there's nothing about "ethics" in the literal text of the constitution. Therefore they don't exist.
We think we know what Reidenberg meant.
But Scalia just had to vent
And thought the matter so pressing
He forewent addressing
Reidenberg's original intent.
--Above the Lymerick
Scalia is dead on. Lots of socially and ethically inappropriate things are perfectly constitutional. Would it be better for the courts to interfere and make a determination about legality in every single instance where someone is taking an inappropriate action in their interactions with others?
@61 = bigoted and racist
for shame, for shame.
puh, Z I N G !
Points to Fordham for standing up high enough to get slapped down. Fordham's always been an under-respected school.
-Not-Fordham T5 Student
Can someone paraphrase 15's comment for those who've just tuned in?
I told her that my penis was this big and now may I please pound her in the ass.
Nino
Just wondering whether summer associates have an expectation of privacy when they get drunk at firm events...
If anyone thinks that Scalia will change his opinion on Congress's power to regulate internet content based on the accessability of his grandkids, then that person must be a foreign LLM or something. Douchbag profs included.
"Fordham's always been an under-respected school."
No fucking wonder.
@39 - Flip = derogatory slang for Filipino. HTH.
@15 used a lot of bad words about blacks, gays, and women. Essentially, everyone under the employ of ATL.
It was not very nice. I think the poster was feverish with swine flu.
Dr. Cocktosisson
Commenter penis removed from moderator's ass.
I agree with 9. This is a slamdunk Restatement section 90 case. I'm just surprised Scalia didn't realize it.
oink oink oink
70, 15's comment consisted of three sentences, all letters capitalized, calling each of the three editors by the best applicable racist/sexist/homophobic terms. I'm sure you can imagine.
The funny part was that while the words insulting Kash and Lat were spelled out - and these were the harshest words imaginable, just about - the word describing Elie was self-censored to read "n*****"
That is all.
How can the comments have continued for so long without any mention of the sodomy question?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050502/berndt
If I nailed a sheep in a barnyard that had some swine present, will I get the gay swine flu?
Texas Lawyer
Comment 15 was Lat posting from the Flipipines, all high on the yamyam.
Coke on a Wednesday
6 - well then we would have illegal conduct wouldn't we? some of you people are dense.
Wouldn't this professor be better off compiling information on Congressmen who can change the law? I think Scalia's usually an asshole, but he's kinda right here.
14 - pass a law then jackass (or encourage one to be passed); don't go digging around int he constitution until you find one
This actually sounds kind of boring -- no affairs, STDs, listed. Reidenberg should give the class some Fs for not coming up with something more juicy than that.
What is yamyam?
Did the people that thought the Fordham professor somehow proved an inconsistency in Scalia's thinking actually go to law school, or are they poli sci undergrads currently studying for the LSAT? I don't agree with Scalia most of the time, but this seems like a no brainer for anyone with legal training.
- HYS grad
58 -
STFU
69, Fordham and Brooklyn are both overrated because they're in NYC. Like any regional school, they can place some of the top of their class at top firms in the area. It just so happens that top firms in the region of NYC are more impressive than top firms in the flyover states.
59 - That's the point, Professor Reidenberg's exercise is an intellectual response.
Scalia thinks this stuff isn't private. Fair enough. But how does he like it when someone digs it up on him? Now he objects, but blames it on "poor judgment." Do you expect the average American, much less the average criminal, to exercise good judgment? Of course not. Scalia's a hypocrite.
I apologize for asking this, but is Fordham accredited by the American Bar Association?
Nothing surprising about the censoring used in 15's comments.
Nobody wants to be the "N*gger guy."
For the advanced course by Reidenberg, "Extortion and the Law", the seminar participants determine how much money they can extract from a Supreme Court Justice not to reveal the dossier compiled by the previous semester's class.
92 = EPIC FAIL. Good luck with finals...
Isn't the N*gger just a river in the country of Africa?
Trig Palin
I wonder why Scalia didn't blame this episode on the "law-profession culture[] that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."
The homosexual activists and the so-called homosexual agenda are good boogeymen for everything else in areas where Scalia is stuck in the 1950s and gets left behind on the Court.
This was the public response. Scalia's private response to Professor Reidenberg was: "If your dossier was complete, you have probably learned that I am Italian, from New Jersey, and connected. That is why this is poor judgment on your part."
100!
All of the comments that state that Scalia was pwned by that prof were wriTTTen by bitter unemployed Fordham grads.
Umm, okay little 92, I'll go slow for you so maybe you can understand. What the Fordham class did was not illegal. Scalia doesn't think it is. It is nowhere in the constitution. That is all Scalia said which sparked this "professor's" action. Scalia then says that the professor used poor judgment. Where is the damn hypocrisy???
Thinks that are legal can be stupid; this is one of them. Another example? Your post. Perfectly legal. Perfectly stupid.
I can't wait to sign up for Reidenberg's Advanced Course in "Extortion and the Law." I understand they use the same dossiers for that course.
101 -
is a bitter laid off 1st year former lathamite - wondering how life pawned him despite going T5
101 -
is a bitter laid off 1st year former lathamite - wondering how life pawned him despite going T5
101 -
is a bitter laid off 1st year former lathamite - wondering how life pawned him despite going T5
36, you are awesome for posting Reidenberg's cell. NEED TO COMPILE A DOSSIER AND POST IT ON REIDENBERG!!!!
83 made me spit-take
33 = tcr
/thread
86 this is 14: Scalia was not talking about Constitutional privacy rights. He was talking about a framework for approaching privacy laws in the digital age. So while I may be a jackass, its not because of my earlier comment.
5 = Scalia
5 = Scalia
agree with scalia (this is pretty rare) about the legality/judgment distinction.
also agree with the potential promissory estoppel claim. in this instance he could probably even get treble damages under 2nd restatement 90.
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/justice_scalias_2.html
92, you're just wrong. The fact that Scalia said that what Reidenberg and his students did was LEGAL shows that Scalia's position is logically consistent. If he had reversed himself and tried to claim that this was illegal, then he would be a hypocrite. Saying that something is bad judgment is not the same as changing his position on the issue. Read some opinions, Scalia often contends that something is ethically/morally wrong but still completely constitutional. Disagree with him all you want but he is not a hypocrite.
All of you debating this are missing the point. I took the Data Privacy Law with Reidenberg, in a previous year. The purpose of the exercise is to get students to think about the policy questions. That is, given the vast amount of information you can find on the Internet, should our privacy laws be different than they are today?
For example, Europe has much more stringent privacy protections, and sites that release some of the same information would be violating EU law if the subjects were EU citizens.
I am puzzled by Scalia's response - in what way did Reidenberg show poor judgment? Why it is unethical to compile this information? There are corporations that make billions of dollars every year compiling and selling massive amounts of data about Americans.
92:
I'm just piling on now, but damn, you are a logical reasoning fail if I've ever seen one. How do those 142 LSAT scores make you feel?
LAW PROFESSOR OVERREACTS TO SCALIA'S COMMENTS, SCALIA OVERREACTS TO OVERREACTION
117: Are you implying that 92 took the LSAT more than once and scored a 142 each time? That would be nuts.
116-
It's poor judgment because a law prof is outing himself to the world as a massive douche. hth.
I love the Restatement 90 shtick, gets me every time. LOLZ!
agree with 26
@118, good work, that headline does actually sum up all anyone would need to know about this "story." Your schtick could have legs.
92,
There would be some intellectual value to Reidenberger's exercise if Scalia were asserting that personal data such as home addresses are factually impossible to uncover, or that no personal information is worthy of privacy protection. He made neither argument. Similarly, taking Souter's house through eminent domain mischaracterizes the rationale behind Kelo, reducing it to "Souter thinks it doesn't suck to lose your house..." Both seem less like intellectual appeals and more like personal vindictiveness.
I think everyone who's ever been to law school understands that being a massive douche is a prereq for teaching law.
Seriously, though, Scalia looks like a whiny little baby. For someone who has no trouble writing at length about the minutiae of civil procedure, it's awfully strange that he casts aspersions without providing any reasoning for his beliefs. He just made a blanket statement about Reidenberg's actions. If he truly felt it was unethical, he would have written (or had a clerk draft) a long missive illustrating why exactly Reidenberg's actions were unethical. But this response just makes him (Scalia) look petty.
Not poor judgment. His exercise illustrated that Scalia might need to reconsider his statement in light of the internet. All Scalia managed to do was sound like an internet poster who, instead of offering a counter, could only cite the professor's "judgment." lame
3 - What hypocrisy? You're an idiot. Shut up/
124-
ethics =/= judgment
What Rosenberg did is perfectly ethical, it's just poor judgment in the sense that it was a total waste of a semester of class time as it didn't prove anything and missed Scalia's point altogether.
But then, it's Fordham, so I'm not really surprised.
We now have more online confirmation that Scalia is a d-bag.
127 - And I suppose the upper-class seminars you took in law school weren't a waste of two hours a week?
My point is that Scalia is never shy to detail his reasoning, but here provided none and merely made a personal attack.
And again, why is it poor judgment to do what hundreds of corporations do every day for massive profit. You know those supermarket discount cards - that their real purpose is to provide marketing data that the companies sell, right? They log every purchase you make and build a dossier of your household based on your purposes (tied to the credit card with which you paid), then get paid to share that information with companies (and often, the government).
129-
-No, they weren't, because I didn't take shitty ones like this. Great argument though.
-I thought his reasoning was pretty clear: "Prof, you're an idiot who didn't understand my point. I said it wasn't illegal. It's not. Sorry you're an idiot."
-I have faith that you can figure your third question out on your own. Try to think of a difference between a company who compiles this information in order to turn a profit and a class that compiles this information in order to (fail to) refute an argument that nobody made. I'll wait.
"Let's compile a dossier on Professor Reidenberg's private information, post it, and see how he likes it."
For what it's worth, that was more or less last year's assignment.
129 - Obviously, you're a 0L or 1L. Because not only have you clearly never taken a seminar in law school, but you don't seem to even remotely grasp the real argument here.
Reidenberg never questioned Scalia's statement. Nowhere does Reidenberg say that Scalia was wrong - I'm not sure why you think otherwise. He just used Scalia's comments as a jumping off point to teach his students about the extent of personal information available on the Internet, and to spark a discussion of whether there should be technological constraints on sharing information, and whether the current laws should be changed.
132-
"Justice Scalia said he doesn't care what people find out about him on the Internet," said Reidenberg during his presentation on the transparency of personal information. "So I challenged my class to compile a dossier on him."
"So, what are you going to do with the dossier now?" we asked Reidenberg after his talk.
"I might write to Scalia to tell him what we've done and see what he thinks," Reidenberg said, laughing.
The obvious point of the exercise was to get Scalia to say "Oh wow, that's scary, i got pwned and have changed my mind."
Scalia's response was completely coherent. Not everything violates the Constitution. Geez.
To all the mouth-breathing Scalia hand-job givers in this thread:
Give it a rest. Most of us find Scalia to be a douche. He reaffirmed that opinion with his response above. Regardless of whether he's an intelligent guy, his legal opinions as well as his public statements reek of a pathetic, insecure little man...one you can relate to, I'm sure, and which is probably why you guys defend him so vigorously.
Flame away.
Restatement 90 comments are the best thing on this website. Seriously. Keep them up.
google "scalia restatement 90" without quotes.
OH YEA
Again, Scalia delivers. In a few short sentences, he made the professor look like the creep that he is. Sending out your students to conduct intelligence on someone with whom you disagree tells me that this Profesor is a card or two short of a full deck. To post the results of this on-line stalking of Scalia shows an immaturity on the part of the Professor. My sense is that the Professor's real aim is to create the circumstances needed for others to cause havoc in Scalia's personal life by publishing info about him and his family Here's hoping no one uses the info that these industrious cyber-stalkers have uncovered to harm Scalia or his family. How do these left wing ideologues sleep at night?
Any privacy law people out there know whether publishing pictures of Scalia's grandkids would constitute a COPPA violation (assuming they are in fact published online)?
Dude, Kash - you're money. Cool story and good job getting Scalia to comment
As usual, Scalia speaks his mind and makes sense.
Dude, Kash - you're money. Cool story and good job getting Scalia to comment
Why. . . the hell. . . would a Supreme Court Justice respond to this law prof's abuse of his position? Scalia's vanity is matched only by his arrogance.
As usual, Scalia speaks his mind and makes sense.
As usual, Scalia speaks his mind and makes sense.
what's good for the goose, is good for the ....
sorry, charlie, (i mean, mr. justice scalia), but you put your data on-line, anyone can take it and compile it and use it any old way they like. deal with it.
what's good for the goose, is good for the ....
sorry, charlie, (i mean, mr. justice scalia), but you put your data on-line, anyone can take it and compile it and use it any old way they like. deal with it.
what's good for the goose, is good for the ....
sorry, charlie, (i mean, mr. justice scalia), but you put your data on-line, anyone can take it and compile it and use it any old way they like. deal with it.
i say an enterprising chapter of the federalist society at any american law school (say, uchicago or pepperdine) should compile a dossier on the good professor.
Love him or hate them, Scalia and the other Justices makes things interesting. And unlike the people in the other two branches, they doesn't demean themselves or their offices while doing it.
138 - My "sense" is that you're a moron. The Profs point was that Scalia's opinion on privacy may be inadequate in view of the information resources available on the internet today.
Cry me a river about Scalia's privacy. This is *public* info, dumbass. The irony here is thick- you criticize the Prof and defend Scalia all while implicitly endorsing the Prof's point about privacy and the internet. Your knee-jerk reaction proves the professor's point. Do you get the purpose of the exercise now? Either you really haven't thought this through, or you're intentially misinterpreting the purpose of the exercise. Either way, I can't understand how *you* sleep at night.
Scalia's ability to dole out zingers makes him popular with readers. But the zingers are really just to seduce the reader rather than convince her. His behavior shows he craves attention and praise over substance. It is a pity he is who he is. The court, and the nation, will be better off when he is gone.
Scalia's ability to dole out zingers makes him popular with readers. But the zingers are really just to seduce the reader rather than convince her. His behavior shows he craves attention and praise over substance. It is a pity he is who he is. The court, and the nation, will be better off when he is gone.
Scalia is right. People need to think before exercising their Constitutional rights. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do something. As the Bard says: "The better part of valor is discretion". Perhaps this is why Scalia is on the Supreme Court and Reidenberg is merely a professor at Fordham.
that's fucking legendary. Reidenberg ftmfw.
154 has a bard in his ass
Scalia is right. People need to think before exercising their Constitutional rights. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do something. As the Bard says: "The better part of valor is discretion". Perhaps this is why Scalia is on the Supreme Court and Reidenberg is merely a professor at Fordham.
Scalia is TTT for dignifying ATL with a response. No offense Ellie, but come on, you're a sitting justice on the United States Supreme Court. You can't be responding to everyone who does something to get underneath your skin. Clearly, you have too much time on your hands. Guess those 75 cases the nine of you hear per year isn't keeping you busy enough.
JusTTTice Scalia.
Who said Reidenberg was a left-winger or disagrees with Scalia about anything other than the serious of online privacy? (Reidenberg takes it more seriously.)
As a way to illustrate how much information there is out there, he assigned students to search for Scalia's info. Last year, he challenge them to look for his info.) This info was not made public.
You people are jumping to conclusions. Where is the left-wing plot here?
Advantage: Scalia
151- I know the "purpose" of the assignment. Your "purpose" appears to be to show what a "thick" skull you must have not to get the point that you do not need to put someone's person and family at risk by publishing a compilation of personal info-regardless of whether it is available in the public domain. But, you prove my point- there are some vindictive assholes (i.e. you and the Professor) in the world who would have no problem if this info were somehow misused- so long as it hurt an opponent. I see where the Professor had students do a similar project last year on him, of course, his students were not directed to publish the results. I wonder why.....
J. Scalia, showing his bent for original intent, seems to accuse the Professor of being a common scold, that is, “[a] person who regularly breaks the peace by scolding people, increasing discord, and generally being a public nuisance to the neighborhood ...[whihc] was formerly punishable in various ways, including having an iron bridle fitted to the person's mouth.” Black's Law Dictionary 1348 (7th ed.1999).
161 epic fail
@161,
Take off your tin-foil hat. How is Scalia an opponent of Riedenberg? Why assume everything have to be about politics? Scalia wrote an opinion that opened himself up to this. If Ginsberg wrote it, I'm sure Riedenberg would have done a similar thing. Chill out spaz.
163 and 164- So, 151 says "Cry me a river about Scalia's privacy" and that does not suggest to either of you that 151 has contempt for Scalia?
Spare us. Delude yourself if you will, but, yes, Dorothy, politics permeates even the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court, the less hallowed halls of Fordham and the backstreets of ATL. Look, its simple, use some frigging common decency when dealing with your fellow citizens. The good Professor should have made his legal points in a way that would not have exposed Scalia and his family to harm. The fact that he chose this way to make his legal point says something, yes, about his politics.
161 and 164- Um, yes, Dorothy, "everything" is political these days. And, 151's comment "Cry me a river about Scalia's privacy rights" should tell anyone that 151 has a not so thinly veiled contempt for Scalia. The legal point could have been made without publishing this information. But, the Professor decided that he would show the world how "inadequate" Scalia's opinion is by putting all of Scalia's personal information (obtained through purportedly public sources) out there for the world to see. So, that's the price Scalia has to pay for daring to take a position with which this academic disagrees. There's something rather mean spirited about this exercise.
So after 5 minutes on Google, I found Joel Reidenburg's wife's name, their Jersey home address and his parents' home address.
Too bad the snarky professor doesn't understand "race to the bottom".
@167 - nice.
This is very helpful when determining whether or not one should hire a lawyer from Fordham Law School. Knowing that they were schooled by radical leftist who thought valuable class time should be spent acting like Tabloid papparazzi is enough to compare them to a BETTER law school that had a more relevant and sustantive curriculum.
What is the next course at Fordham Law -- The History of Madonna's Underwear?
Using Scalia's grandchildren as fodder only makes the Fordham Law School nuts look like stalkers and in need of medical and psychological help. I can see some 20 something running into his small study group, bragging that he finally got little Susie's name and where she sleeps. Too bad NBC "To Catch a Pedophile" is no longer on TV -- Fordham Law School students would make good perverts.
Why don't they do this to Obama, Pelosi and Reid? Isn't it the job of politicians to pass laws?
That is very exciting that Scalia would respond, congratulations!
The most elegant dope-slap I have ever seen given to a professor.
167-Nice work. This exercise seems like an extra credit "take home project" that my old public grade school teachers would give out so the slow kids could raise their grade to passing. St. Ignatius of Loyola must be spinning in his grave. Expect Fordham to take a tumble next year in the ratings if this is what passes as an academic pursuit at that law school.
Although it pains me to agree with Scalia about anything whatsoever, he's right about Reidenberg. Doesn't say much about Fordham that they employ Reidenberg either. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1012604
Although it pains me to agree with Scalia about anything whatsoever, he's right about Reidenberg. Doesn't say much about Fordham that they employ Reidenberg either. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1012604
"Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any."
This rather sums up Scalia's tenure on the bench, huh?
Scalia is always correct. If it wasn't for him, President Gore might have stopped 9/11 when he read the daily briefing in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden poised to strike US".
So there. Proof positive, case closed. Antonin Scalia, super genius.
Anyone who knows Prof. Reidenberg knows what a pompous, self-serving, self-promoting, little gnat he is. Kudos to Scalia for swatting this nuisance back into his place.
From: OSAMAS PAJAMAS
Scalia once again demonstrates the petty meanspiritedness of Democrats and the superiority of his own mind. Scalia's a conservative and I'm a libertarian; Scalia's a Christian and I'm an atheist --- but Scalia's DA MAN! Yeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaa!!!
I recommend reading the AP article that seemed to start this all. Based on that article, I think the prof. was right to use Scalia's comments in his class assignment. It more than just the quote used here. Scalia said there was a difference between two different types of data. Left unsaid was what data fits into the different categories.
********
"Discussions of privacy rights in the digital era should distinguish between such confidential data as medical records and information that might be personal but is easy to find out, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday.
Considering every fact about someone's life private is "extraordinary," he said, noting that data such as addresses have long been discernible, even if technology has made them easier to find.
"Every single datum about my life is private? That's silly," Scalia told a conference hosted by the Institute of American and Talmudic Law, which is affiliated with the Orthodox Jewish Chabad Lubavitch movement and studies and compares the American and Jewish legal systems."
Fordham is so far gone the school should have their tax exempt status examined. The EO dept. should take a full look at this and other actions by Fordham Law faculty and administration.
Fordham is so far gone the school should have their tax exempt status examined. The EO dept. should take a full look at this and other actions by Fordham Law faculty and administration.
Surprisingly loose wording from a great judge. By saying "I was referring, of course, to whether every single datum about my life DESERVES privacy protection in law" he appears to be commenting not on what the law is, but what it should be.
As Fat Tony told the photog outside his church a couple of years ago: "Vafanculo, paisan!:"
"What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment."
Would that Justice Scalia would show similar concern over the abominably poor judgement of one Judge Jay Bybee.
Then, I might suspect that Scalia was a serious person, rather than a criminal, right wing hack.
16: Isn't law informed by ethics? If not, what is law? You are a fool.
116---That is the problem with modern legal education. Law School is not suppossed to be "policy" school. Go back to melding the mush between the youngsters ears into steel logic traps and leave "policy" and "ethics" debates to the goverment and philosophy graduate programs.
More proof that the majority of legal professors look at the profession as a way to do an end-run on the democratic process. Let legislatures pass laws and judges and lawyers interpret them.
186: What is law?
Under the modern positivist approach, law is nothing more than a set of arbitrary rules agreed upon at any given time by a majority of the representatives of the people to take money/power/privilege from one group of society for the benefit of another group.
Ethics has no place in such a paradigm
This is outrageous! But this sort of thing happens on the left all the time. Napolitano called Tea Partiers extremeists but this is real extremism. And it is dangerous.
This is outrageous! But this sort of thing happens on the left all the time. Napolitano called Tea Partiers extremeists but this is real extremism. This is dangerous and an invasion of privacy.If my child went to this school I would be in the Dean's office protesting.
I think Justice Scalia may help my conservative views. Frightening what is happening in our country, money being spent that we don't even have, what to do? print more???
weight loss articles directory