The Idaho Republican., 1913-05-16
NEWSPAPER PUBLICITY LAW.
Statesman.

Some of the critics of the act re-
quiring newspapers and magazines to
publish the names of their owners,
editors, managers, stockholders, and
security holders and requiring daily
newspapers to make some statements
of their circulation, contend that this
is an interference with the freedom
OF the press AS matter of fact the
law does not in any way interfere
with. the freedom of the press. 1t
leaves every newspaper and magaz-
inc absolutely free to express it's own
opinions or the opinion of others,
and to publish any newspaper or any
facts that it may choose to publish,
subject to the same accountability for
libel that existed prior to the enact
ment Of this law.
The law now under discussion gives
no official the slightest inquisitional
or controlling power. There are
three requirements in the newspaper
publicity laws: That the ownership
financial control and editorial man
agement shall be made public semi
annually; that all editorial or read
ing matter for which compensation
is received shall be marked paid
advertising" that daily newspapers
shall make semi-annually sworn state
ments of their circulation.
To assert that such, provisions in
terfere with the freedom of the press
is to make strange Interpretation
of the word freedom. Let us re-
fleet upon the contention of the crit
les Of this law. The freedom, of the
press differs in no respect from the
liberty of individual citizens. The
publication of newspaper entities
man to no greater rights than the
ordinary citizen enjoys. If law re-
to disclose their identity is an in
fringment upon the freedom of the
press, then the corrupt practice act
which prohibits the circulation of an
nonymous campaign Literature is an
abridgement of personal liberty
If the view of the critics shall pre-
vail, then it is unconstitutional to
require the name of the packer shall
be placed on every can of meat or
fruit. If the newspaper owner can
conceal his identity, then it is pro-
per for an ordinary citizen to con-
ceal himself behind mask and stand
upon the street corner voicing his
opinions of his fellow citizens. If it
be un-American to compel publicity
of newspaper ownership, then 1t is
also i'm American to compel publicity
of bank ownership.
That provision of the law relating
to paid advertising does not apply
to matter that is plainly advertising
but only to matter that is in appear
ance reaching or editorial matter.
Shall we admit that maintenance of
the freedom of the press requires
that newspaper shall be protected
in its privilege of printing paid ad-
vertising matter in the guise of news
articles or editorial comment? II
so, then it is wrong to require that
the man who takes money for his SER
vices in a political campaign shall
file sworn statement as required by
the up-to-date corrupt practices act.
If It Is unconstitutional to forbid
newspaper to deceive its subscribe
ers, then it is also wrong to infringe
upon personal liberty by making 1t
crime to sell watered milk. In fact
adulterated news is more harmful
to the public than adulterated milk.
The editor who protests against a
law that forbids the publication of
paid editorials without that fact be-
ing stated, should also protest against
the law that forbids carrying con-
cealed weapons. The right to bear
arms is expressly reserved by the
constitution but probably every state
iii the union forbids carrying conceal
edweapons. The secretly paid edi-
torial is weapon no less dangerous
than the stiletto.
The other provision against which
complaint is made is that which re-
quires daily papers to make sworn
statements of their circulation. Week
ly and monthly publications were not
included because it is comparatively
easy for an advertiser to ascertain
approximately the circulation of those
publications. This is not true in the
case Of daily paper, sold largely
by newsboys upon the street but sent
in part through the mails. In selling
advertising space, the publisher bases
his price upon his circulation. The