Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-03-15
Ruling on Freedom of Press
Lauded as Public Safeguard

The safeguards Of liberty were re-
inforced when the Ohio appellate court
overruled a lower court which held two
newspaper editors In Cleveland In con-
tempt. This is the conclusion of editors
who comment on the case, which arose
over criticism of an injunction against
sherihs interference with race track
where gambling was alleged.
we live in an age of pitiless pub
licity," say the Ohio appellate judges:
an age when freedom of speech and a
free press are paramount issues. People
should be allowed to say what they
please and newspapers to print what
they please, always making themselves
liable under the laws of SANDER or the
laws of libel"
If 1t has seemed" according to the
St Louis lobe-Democrat, that Judges
have of late been increasingly inclined
to make an improper use of their
authority in such cases, doubtless this
appellate decision will serve wholesome
purposes. There is we'll defined
ofense constituting contempt of court,
for which fitting remedies are available.
To extend its scope to include acts not
only authorized but encouraged by law
is to invite prevalence of great abuses.
That, for sound reasons, the press is
reluctant to criticize the bench is we'll
known to newspaper readers, and when
1T does offer criticism it is seldom
harsh and almost always expresses deep
public conviction. Should it be unfair
or based on distortion of fact, judges
have their remedy in the libel laws, as
well as other citizens"
1.-THE courts are entitled" declares
the Richmond News Leader, ito the
respect and sympathetic cooperation
OF the press in the performance of their
difficult duties, but when judges step
beyond the limits of powers conferred
and use their official positions to bring
men to book because of criticism, it Is
only fair that persons who are the OBJ
jects Of the judges anger should be
given a trial before an impartial tri-
bunal. Not to permit this is to ignore
the demands of justice and to display q
lamentable lack of craftsmanship"
Judges are men, subject to the same
pretudices as other humans" says the
Hartford Daily Courant. Because
they are, they can scarcely be expected
to render impartial verdicts in cases
which they themselves have initiated
and In which their own interests are at
stake"
Thus ends another attempt on the
part of constituted authority" remarks
the Roanoke World-News, Ito misuse
that power for the sake of unfolding
personal dignity against criticism before
the public. Either the judges armor
was not very thick or he was not alto
gether sure that his granting of the in
junction was fully justified to begin
with. His attempt to abridge the free
dom of the press, guaranteed in the
Constitution, has met with a we'll de-
served rebuke." The Birmingham News
holds that here is what may be char
acterized a landmark in the struggle
to insure the freedom of the press" and
that the decision handed down by the
appellate court deserves praise beyond
words"
Welcoming the decision as "a good
court precedent" the Grand Rapids
Press states that amy other precedent
merely places rnuzzle of legal intimi-
dalton on the telling of what newspa-
pers regard as the truth about judicial
officers" That paper asks, "Why should
the elective Judiciary be exempt from
the power of publicity which protects
and enlightens the public in the case OF
every other public servant they choose?"
The Yakima Daily Republic, asserting
that the case involves principle OF
free speech which newspapers have
jealousy guarded in their function as
spokesman of the people," points out
that "the appellate division stressed the
fact that the editorial could not be con-
strued as an attempt TO subYert or OBJ
struct justice. since 1t appeared after
the judgment had been handed down."
The upper courts suggestion that q