Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-06-02
Freedom of the Press.

States Supreme Court has become a
f1ve-to-four majority to uphold the
freedom of the press in a decision that
takes rank with the most important
Of those ever delivered. Something Of
its consequence is noted In the minor
ity opinion which declares that "the
decision Of the court in this case de-
clares Minnesota and every other State
powerless to restrain by injunction the
business of circulating among the
people malicious, scandalcus and de-
famatory periodicals that In due course
of judicial procedure have been ad-
judged to be a public nuisance. 1t
gives to freedom of the press q mean
ing and a scope not heretofore recog-
ni0ed, and CONSTITUTES liberty in the
due process clause Of the fourteenth
amendment to put upon the States q
Federal restriction that is without
precedent"
Which Is true, and which permits
the majority which decided otherwise
to be advisedly classified as liberal"
For there is concerned in this opinion
a point Ct view which, in other some
what similar cases, has divided the
conservative from the liberal element
of the court. And this time the liberal
opinion happens to be the opinion Of
the majority.
That point of view. as stated by Chief
Justice Hughes, Is that charges Of rep
rehensible conduct, and in particular
of official malfeasance. unquestionably
create a public scandal but the theory
of the constitutional guaranty IS that
even a more serious public evil would
be caused by authority to prevent pub
ncation."
In other words, suppression Of free
speech, or Of assembly. or Of the free
dom Of the press Is far more danger
GUS thing in itself than the relatively
trivial harm that may result from what
many good men may decide is the abuse
Of these rights. 1t is more important
that the fundamental rights be pre-
served, even at great cost, than that
they be surrendered for the purpose
of dealing with a passing emergency.
The minority of the court advanced
the same opinion In the case Of Whit
new VS.. California-"Fear Of serious
injury cannot alone justify suppression
Of free speech and assembly. Men
feared witches and burnt women.
Those who won our independence by
revolution were not towards. They did
not fear political change. They did
not exalt order at the cost Of liberty"
And it is significant Of q change In
the makeup of the Supreme Court,
which has already become the subject
of wide comment, that this conception
of freedom guaranteed by the Consti-
tuition as held by former minority OF
the court could appropriately be writ
ten into this present opinion by what
is now the majority.
The Minnesota law evoked Nation
wide interest at the time Of its appli-
cation to enjoin from publication
weekly magazine that printed a series
of articles on graft and crime IN the
State, seeking to link public officials,
and especially police officers. with the
underworld. The law permitted the
abatement as a public. nuisance Of Q
malicious, scandalous and defsmatory
newspaper or other periodical" and left
81 he SAa{eiAva "a xxy1aa
such terms we're applicable. for the law
did not define malicious, scandalous"
or "defamatory." The offending news
paper was suppressed and the State ST.
preme Court upheld the validity Of the
law and its application.
The United States Supreme Court did
net consider the question of the truth
or falsity of the charges made by the
newspaper as of any great significance.
The question involved the far more i'm
portant right Of q State to curb the
freedom of the press and to impose q
judicial censorship. Cutting through
mere details of procedure" as Chief
Justice Hughes said, the law enabled
public authorities to bring the owner or
publisher Of newspaper before q Judge,
and unless the owner or publisher could
persuade the judge that his charges
were true and published with good mo-
tives, the publication could be sup
pressed and further publication would
be punishable as contempt.
The possibilities for tyranny under
such a law are too obvious to require
elaboration. Public officers, whose
character and conduct remain open to
debate and free discussion in the press,
find their remedies for false accuse
tions in action under libel laws, provid-
ing for redress and punishment" said
the court. land not in proceedings to
restrain the publication Of newspapers
and periodicals"