OCR Text |
Show T ; i. . vJ ENTERPRISE! ' 9 PRAGMATIC DOGMATICS :C ?s A Christmas present for V-J-- by Kent Shearer i 'i The news media, long fearful of the law of libel and slander, received good tidings last The U.S. Supreme Court refused, week. without dissent, to hear an appeal sought by prominent scientists who had been besmirched by the New York Times. The background of the case is colorful. The Audubon Society which, having read Rachel Carlson's Silent Spring, now is closed to further evidence believes that the insecticide DDT is a dangerous dccimator of our feathered friends. Angered by scientific dissent to this view', the fowl fanciers falsely said the dissenters, who included a Nobel Prize winner, had been paid to lie." The Times reported the charge. The aggrieved technologists sued, and a New York federal jury awarded them $61,000 against the Times. The Times then took the matter to the hi .r ; Imo 10 & J 5PA0? 100 6X09056 Ik) LCOW& TVETOllSP cem&ax TD 2OSflcUT Ak) mt mw wipes 606A5IUS P6RS0OAWTV SBOOH6P. r cose op views regarding their validity." The judicial language raises questions. What is a responsible, prominent organization?" What about those which are responsible? Who decides whether an organization is responsible, prominent, or both? What, moreover, is disinterested reporting?" If, as Webster's suggests, it means free from selfish motive, should the scientists counsel have discovered whether the Times reporter himself was an Audubon member? Despite these caveats, however, it is clear that the Times case marks another step toward extensive, if not absolute, media exemption from the constraints the law of libel and slander impose upon others. One can only hope that the press docs not transform this new found liberty into license. Otherwise, the public interest in being fully informed," of which the Circuit wrote, may be perverted rather than served. examine. Understandably, the Times places a sweeping interpretation upon its victory. Its attorney, Floyd Abrams, called it in every way a landmark ruling." Abrams continued, Until this case, no court had made as clear the proposition that when a journalist reports defamatory charges by one public figure against another there can be no liability, regardless of the journalists own view's about the accuracy of the charges." A close reading of the Circuit decision indicates that it may not be quite as broad as Abrams would have it. (W)hen," the Court held, a responsible, prominent organization ...makes serious charges against a public figure, the First amendment protects the ac mu MASCUUMff. curate and disinterested reporting of those charges, regardless of the reporters private Second Circuit Court of Appeal which, in the federal court system, was the appropriate appelate body. The Circuit applied the First (free speech) Amendment to the Constitution, and reversed the jury verdict. It was that reversal that the Supreme Court chose not to the press XTT t i US AS IF IM iwomre so in FRCH MAR6- - MOW? 0FF5OP MO 0)6- - Showdown at the Bar-- X (Part the very nature of a police officers duties. Those too sensitive II) by Parker M. Nielson In the corridors at the Metropolitan Hall of Justice, TV cameras whirred and reporters chattered into their tape recorders as thev rushed to file stories on the Rulon Allred case, a routine murder. But the real drama was being enacted across the hall in the courtroom of Judge Maurice Jones. There the entire law enforcement system was on trial in a case entitled Bar-X- , Part I" Salt Lake City v. Strasscr (Sec Showdown at the Enterprise, Dec. 12, 1977.) Titters of nervous laughter swept Judge Jones courtroom at the spectacle of a policeman abusing his powers. The resources of the Court and the public safety department were tied up over a policemans transparently personal grudge against a private citizen. as when the operator of a Except in unusual circumstances, vehicle cannot be identified or his appearance at trial secured, to circumvent the due process impoundment seems calculated officer exacts his fine at the requirements of law. The police inconvenience (to him) of trial, review impound lot, without the Such an act is in contempt of our by judge or jury and appeal. on all peace officers. system and brings disrespect when he summoned the four or five backup" patrol cars to arrest a man he acknowledged was not resisting or offering was plainly flexing his muscles; any threats. Officer Warner audacious enough to challenge his acts on trying to impress one should not bear the expense of such prior occasions. The public adolescent antics by those whom they have employed to keep t 1'1C Verbal abuse is never commendable, but it is provoked by - to withstand verbal reactions arc doubtfully qualified to wear a badge. The great majority of police officers I am acquainted with arc proud professionals, more mature then to abuse their office. Petty individuals like Officer Warner should not be permitted to tarnish their image, making their task in serious police work difficult and oftimes impossible. Judge Jones suggested during Strasscrs trial that the place to raise such questions is with a police review' board. But on facts, like these there should be no need for private citizens to actuate the review process, for police chiefs and their lieutenants hold office precisely to see that such abuse does not occur. Yet for all that appears neither Chief Willoughby or any like officer called Warner to account for what unusual circumstances justified actual arrest on a charge as frivolous as spitting in public." It is not as if someone did not recognize the absurdity of the charge, for several days later the equally contrived charges of littering (Strasscr dropped a napkin when the manacles were being placed on him) and disturbing the four-lette- r expletives) were added in an peace (. e. mouthing 3 obvious attempt to cover the spurious arrest for spitting." The thought of actually prosecuting such a case is too ridiculous to be tolerated by the presumably intelligent supervisors of our police department and the City Attorney's Office. By the time Judge Jones', trial was concluded, literally thousands of dollars in the time of police officers, prosecutors, judges and their staff and use of public facilities had been expended. If police officers sometimes get a bad image, more often than not it is over the lack of professionalism exemplified by Officer Warner. |