Arizona republican., 1922-01-15


with verdict Of 81 against the defendant, the Ari
zona Star, will have the effect, think, of discour-
aging similar suits and especially suits which may
called speculative, in which the plaintiffs hope by
some accident, some "break" in the game to win.
The existing libel laws Of most states encourage
such actions. They should be changed so that pro-
ceedings could be had under them only when actual
damage has been inflicted.
The present rigid libel laws owe their existence
o two circumstances. In the elder irresponsible days
Of Journalism svicious and unjust attacks by news
papers upon individuals were much more common
than they or have been for some years Jour-
nalism was then much less impersonal A newspaper
proprietor editor reporter did hesitate to make
OF his position castigate or rdicule private
citizen If the latter happened to have incurred his
displeasure. Political enemies were especially sub
Ject to such attacks and few Of them escaped.
The newspapers, too. did not hesitate to ignore
facts AS individuals the proprietors may have been
truthful but they frequently distinguished between
the spoken and the printed statement
Those they attacked entertained a mingled dis
respect fear and hatred Of them and the politicians
nearly all Of whom had at one time or another suf-
fered in position legislation not only
for protection but also for revenge. 1t was not un-
natural therefore, that they should go too far in
the latter direction Hence very stringent libel
laws.
Even in the old days, there were careful and con-
scientious newspaper men. but they exceptions
to the run. Times have changed SO that now
the intoerant, vicious and untruthful newspaper
writer is so much Of exception. that he becomes
outstanding figure in a rather wide area.
The modern newspaperman. not because of fear
Of the law. but because of his sense of justice and
fairness refrains from attacks Of personal nature
He sometimes leans backward in this respect and
hestates to say OF whom he personally dis
likes what he would say of the conduct one against
whom he has personal grievance. He treats him
with respectful silence unless his conduct is such as
to offend considerable section OF the public.
Occasionally through misinformation though he
does citizen injustice and sometimes damage; he
seldom has time in his hurry to verify the informa-
tion that to him. In such a case he makes
correction prompt and conspicuous. Some times the
injury he has done is such cannot be repaired by
him and then he is made to pay, as he ought to be
made to pay. for one should pay for all damage for
which he is responsible. when unintentionaly
inflicted. But there is comparatively little malicious
libel by the newspapers
AS the laws now stand the newspapers are suf-
ferng for the sins Of older generation. There is
hardly issue OF paper in which may not be found
grounds for libel. 1t is true that suit
might be sustained on one Of thousand such
grounds but any OF them the paper is in peril
OF harassment.
1t perhaps would be difficult to secure a modern
izaton Of the libel laws now, but think that the
public and juries being brought the archa
ism of them that in their application they will be
modified to present conditions