The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1892-03-31
Lawyer and Journalist.
Ohio State Journel.I

l The locking Sentinel calls at
tention to an important fact. Mem
bers Of the journalistic profession
are held to strict accountability al
the bar of public opinion for all
unnecessary personal abuse or viii
ifcation of individuals, and are
liable to the vexations and expen-
ses of libel suit if they are reck-
less as to the charges they make
in reference to the conduct Of cit
liens.
This is all we'll enough, for
journalism while it must necessar-
lily deal with persons should do so
conscientiously and truthfully, and
not according to personal dislikes
quarrels or enmities of the jour
nalist, nor according to that taste
for detraction and slander which
with some men seems natural and
instructive.
But while the profession of
journalism is rightly held up to
this lofty standard, the Sentinel
wants to know why it is that the
legal profession should in practice
be almost wholly exempt from it.
A lawyer may stand up in court
room in presence of the assembled
public and launch upon the indi-
vidual whose suit he Is opposing
and upon that individuals witness
es and friends, whole torrents of
vitubrations, obloquy and abuse,
without being called to account
for it and with out liability to be
called to account. The best, pur-
est and most honorable citizen in
a community, seeking justice in
the courts, may thus be made the
victim Of the foulest, vilest and
most damaging onslaught upon
his reputation, standing and char
acter, and has absolutely no re-
dress whatever. He is but a COM
mon citizen, while the lawyer is
"privileged."
Of course there are high-minded |
gentlemen in the legal profession
who would scorn to indulge in
this vituperation and SANDER. But
there are others who delight in it,
whose principle stock in trade it
is, and who are perhaps some
times employed by dishonorable
clients solely on account of their
ability and willingness to vllify
and abuse. And indeed it may be
said that the license accorded to
lawyers in this respect is stand
ing temptation to the entire pro-
fession.
Now all this is wrong. The
lawyer should no more be privil-
eyed to recklessly libel and SANDER
his fellow citizens than should the
editor. The power of public
opinion should be brought to bear
against personal law practice as
we'll as against personal Journal
ism. And the lawyer who unnec-
essarily assails individual charac-
ter, reputation and motives, and
falsely attributes immoral and
wrong doing to citizens In court
room, should be made legally re-
sponsible therefor as much as the
journalist who does the same
thing in the columns of a news
paper.
Neither lawyer nor journalist
should be held responsible for
said or prin ted in good
faith and with no intention to do
injustice or wrong; for the public
interest requires that the tongue
IF the lawyer and the pen of the
editor shall be alike free. But as
no public interest is subserved by
personal SANDER, libel, falsehood
and reckless abuse of individuals
oy the editor, SO no public interest
and no requirement of justice is
through the SANDER,
vituperation and personal abuse of
individuals on the part of the law
yer. Both journalist and lawyer
ire indeed necessarily "privileged'
IN the true and nobler sense of the
5erm, but neither should be priv
legged to disregard the rights of
citizens or to commit willful
yrOnp.