Deception justified to expose Justice Alito's unfiltered opinions: ethicist

When documentary filmmaker Lauren Windsor spoke with Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and his wife Martha Ann Alito during the annual Supreme Court Historical Society dinner last week, the pair did not know Windsor is actually a liberal journalist.

Audio obtained by the "Gonzo for Democracy" documentary director revealed where the conservative high court justice and his wife really stand politically, as the justice said America should return to a place of "godliness," and Mrs. Alito railed against Pride flags.

In a Thursday, June 5 op-ed published by the San Francisco Chronicle, Edward Wasserman, a media ethicist and former dean of UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism, questioned whether or not Windsor overstepped in her decision to record the justice and his wife in secrecy.

ALSO READ: ‘Harm Democrats’: Republican lawmakers practically giddy about Trump prison silver lining

Wasserman, however, asserts, "You should be able to justify deceit as indispensable to get something important, of public significance, that you would never get without the lie."

The UC Berkeley professor writes:

Did the Alito comments justify the deception it took to get them? I think so.

Here is a powerfully influential Supreme Court justice. He’s speaking to an adoring young fan in his own words, not his clerks. And he’s conveying profound skepticism about the possibility of social compromise while concurring with a vision of the court as an instrument of a nearly messianic purpose.

The battle to preserve privacy needs to be fought vigorously. But the country’s highest court is a mighty institution with uniquely secretive inner workings. We aren’t allowed to know what Justice Alito says to clerks or colleagues while he writes opinions that shape the lives of millions. That’s why we’re entitled to hear what he said, in an unguarded moment, to a deceptive reporter.

The Hill reported Wednesday, "In previous interviews, Windsor said recording the justices without their knowledge was necessary to get their candid commentary, given the court’s inclination toward privacy."

During a recent interview with NewsNation's Chris Cuomo, the liberal activist said, "To all the pearl-clutchers out there, when you have a Supreme Court that is shrouded in secrecy and doing its best to avoid any ethics accountability, I think that extreme measures are warranted. I don’t think the founders ever intended for public servants to just be rogue."

Wasserman's full op-ed is available at this link. The Hill's report is here.