Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-06-11
Press Freedom Is Declared
Fundamental Right of Nation

Both past and present day conditions
are found by the public TO give force
and importance to the decision of the
United States Supreme Court that the
Minnesota law Subjecting the press %
judicial censorship is unconstitutional
1t is held that if such laws were sus-
tanned. all liberty would suffer and
political tyranny would be upheld. The
measure under discussion vas invoked
against a paper which was charged
with being a scandal sheet" in its
attacks on public officials.
What the Minnesota Legislature of
1925 attempted to do" says the ST.
Paul Pioneer Press, was to institute
a censorship Of the press, for the pur-
pose Of putting the so-called scandal
sheets out of business With this mo-
tive few persons have seriously quar-
relied, but the real test of great and
fundamental principle arises, not in
respect to the obvious cases but when
the time comes for their application in
defense of the most unSa tiSfactory
claimants Of right. If the plain Ian
guage of the Constitution does not mean
anything even for the evil-tongued
scandal sheets. then freedom of press
and opinion in America is non-eXiStent
and there is not newspaper or organ
OF public information in the country
that is safe from the interference Of
unworthy sc, f-interested public officials"
While the reactionarisS devised and
enacted the gag law" according TO the
Chicago Daily Tribune lit was the rad
icalS, come into power. that used it to
suppress the Saturday Press for expos
ing the corruption of the police under
radical rule and forcing the dismissal
OF the chief OF police. Had not both
supported it, it could not have been sold,
In nf in
nesota or that of any other free and
intelligent community. No inkling of
this background of the gag law will be
found in the dissenting opinion. On
the contrary, its implication is as we
! have said. that there was involved only
the suppression Of an abuse of press
freedom. But the Saturday Press was
| not suppressed for not telling the truth
1t was suppressed because it was telling
1 altogether too much of it. 1t was not
suppressed because it was scurrilouS,
recklessly defamatory, abusive and in
+ cendiary. but because, whatever the
character or motives Of its editor, it
was giving Gpublicity to conditions
which political profiteers and corrup-
tionists could not afford to permit the
public to realize"
Arbitrary official power to suppress
! publication" states the San Antonio
Express, lis unquestionably foreign to
free government. A scandal sheet may
be nuisance; mud-slinging and char
/ acter-aSsaSSination may work great
| harm-but in such circumstances the
! libcl laws offer redress. 1t is better
even to tolerate those abuses than to
Z risk the far greater evils inherent in
governmental control over the press,
for in that direction lies eventual en-
slavGment."
J AN important declaration of consti-
tutional principle" is seen by the Phil
adelphia Inquirer, while the ST. Louis
Post-Dispatch maintains that 1.-The
libel laws already provide punishment
for untruthful, malicious and scandal
Gus charges, and they constitute a suf-
; ficient curb on journalistic freedom.
! The Cleveland News points out that the
decision is "a blow to censorship. ad-
vocated with more or less inSistence