Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1959-06-10
SIiqht Turn to Riqht

Z
Justice Blacks dissenting opinion in
the case of Lloyd Barenblatt suggests
that the Supreme Court has ridden
roughShod over the First Amendment
and the liberties which it safeguards.
We do not believe, however, that the
majority ruling Is to ~ in the Barren
blatt case supports any such extreme
Interpretation.
At most, 1t seems to us, the court
majority has made small turn to the
right. And even this may not be JUS
tified conclusion. For there are signifl-
cant differences between the Barenblatt
case and the Watkins Casa case in
which the court in 1857 reversed
conviction for contempt Of the House
Committee on Un-American Activities.
Watkins conviction was reversed on
the ground that he was not adequately
apprised Of the pertinency OF the queS-
ton which he refused to answer. The
majority held, however, that Barenblatt
not only failed to challenge the peril
nency Of the critical question when it
was put to him, but also that he under
stood that 1t was pertinent. Further
more, Watkins had refused to testify
concerning alleged Communist affllia-
lions of others, while Barenblatt con-
tended that the First Amendment
protected him against contempt punish
ment for refusing to testify about his
own alleged Communist activities.
Barenblatt, formerly a psychology
instructor at Vassar College, contended
that the House committee, under the
First Amendment, had no right to ask
about his political" and religious" be-
liefs or any other personal and private
affairs" or his "associational activities"
On this broad basis, he refused to say
whether he was then Tin 1881 a Com
munist or whether he had ever been
Communist In ruling against him, the
court majority held that 1t was neceS-
sary to strike a balance between the
interests of the individual in remaining
silent and the interests Of the Govern
ment in obtaining information which
might be needed to legislate in behalf
of its own self-preservation. In the
circumstances Of this case, 1t said, the
latter interest should prevail. Justice
Harlan made it clear that the majority
was not opening the door to any con-
gressional investigation of teaching as
such, and the American people, in our
belief, need not fear that their consti-
tutional rights have been sold down the
river by Justices Harlan, Frankfurter,
Clark, Whitaker and Stewart.
Justice Black wrote an eloquent and
impassioned dissent. But 1t wandered
far afleld, we thought, from the facts
Of the Barenblatt case.
Justice Black spoke in vigorous
terms Of "the right to err politically,
which keeps US strong as Nation"
Presumably, in relation to the Barren
blatt case, the right to err politically
is the right to belong to the Communist
Party, and then, later on, possibly to
recognize the worthlessness Of the Com
munist arguments. Does it follow that
1t would be good thing If every Amer
lean were to learn the hard way by
becoming Communist?
The essential fact is that nothing
in this decision prevents Barenblatt
from belonging to the Communist Party.
Nothing in 1t prevents him from ex-
pounding Communist doctrine to all who
will listen. He is free to associate with
whomever he pleaseS. All the decision
holds is that he must choose between
facing punishment for contempt and
giving a truthful answer when asked,
in a proper setting, whether he is a
Communist.
The dissenting opinion objects to
this on the ground that to ask the ques-
ton, or to require an answer, is to sub
ject him to punishment" in the form
of public scorn and contempt. This is
true. But what is the alternative? Does
the Constitution immunize a Commu-
mist, or the holder of some other I'M
popular belief, from public reputation?
Does a perSon-any teacher, editor or
preacher-have constitutional right to
be a secret" Communist and exert his
influence accordingly? Perhaps he does.
But it seems to us that this distorts the
intent of the First Amendment. Our
forefathers who were to draft the Con-
stitution held beliefs which were de-
spised by the British Crown and by the
American Tories. But they were willing
to stand publicly on their beliefs and
pledge to- each other "our lives, our
fortunes and our sacred honor"
When Patrick Henry sounded his
call for liberty or death, he did not