chapter

10

The Editor and the Law

• The Legal System

• The First Amendment

• Libel

• Defenses against Libel

• Constitutional Defenses

• Privacy

• Defenses against Invasion of Privacy Charges

• News Gathering

• Constant Vigilance

 

Editors today live in a world of litigation. The United States has become a society that places increasing reliance on the judicial system. Our law schools are graduating more lawyers than many legal experts believe are necessary to service the system. Congress, the federal bureaucracy, state legislatures, and city and county governments continue to fill volumes of statute books with new laws and regulations. Citizens are turning to the courts more frequently for redress of their grievances. Editors find themselves more and more often the focal point of legal disputes, so it has become incumbent upon editors to know the law and to know how to use it to their advantage.

Editors need a thorough understanding of the law and the legal system not only to keep them out of legal difficulties with what they publish but also to help them in understanding the world they cover and in making the appropriate journalistic judgments for their news organizations.

The Legal System

 

A great deal of today’s television drama and much of our popular fiction focus on or revolve around the legal system. In addition, there is rarely a time when there is no trial or important legal matter in the news. We are fascinated with courts and trials. They are where the big social issues come into conflict, and they produce memorable and controversial personalities. Consequently, most of us have a basic understanding of the judicial system and courtroom procedures.

But the judicial system is much more complex than what we are likely to see on “Law and Order” or in the news coverage of the trial of a celebrity such as Michael Jackson or Martha Stewart. The United States is covered several times over with court systems, and editors must understand the structures of these systems, the types of cases they hear, and how they work together.

Two types of judicial cases exist: criminal and civil. Criminal cases involve acts that are so offensive to society that they merit fines or time in jail. These, of course, do not need to be crimes of violence. Larceny, fraud, and obstruction of the judicial procedure are crimes that can result in jail sentences. Only governments—local, state, and federal—can initiate criminal charges. Our “law and order” political environment during the past four decades has resulted in more acts being termed criminal and more people being sent to jail. More than two million people are incarcerated in the nation’s federal and state prisons—nearly 1 percent of the entire population. Despite these numbers, criminal cases account for a relatively small percentage of the cases that courts oversee.

Civil cases—disputes between two parties over agreements or interpretation of the law—make up the vast proportion of legal activity in the United States. In civil cases a person or organization (the plaintiff) sues another person or organization (the defendant). The purpose of the suit might be to stop the defendant from doing something or to punish the defendant for actions that have already been taken. That punishment usually comes in the form of money, but sometimes a defendant can also be ordered to do something. Governments, companies, organizations, and private citizens can initiate civil cases.

At its roots the United States has two court systems: the federal system and the system for each state. Every American has access to both systems. The federal system enforces and litigates laws passed by Congress. In some cases it also provides a court for disputes between citizens of two different states.

Both of these court systems—the federal and state systems—are structured in essentially the same way. They have three different levels: trial courts, intermediate appellate courts, and supreme courts. A state system will have trial courts in each county and in many cities. These courts go by different names, such as municipal courts or district courts. They litigate disputes under laws passed by the state legislatures and county and city legislative bodies. In the federal system the trial level court is called a district court. A single federal district may cover several counties in a state, depending on the population of the area.

This is the level of the court systems at which trials are held. Charges are brought, juries are impaneled, evidence is presented, and verdicts are rendered. The trial level is the stage at which most of the drama that you read about and see in the legal system takes place. Trials might be dramatic, but they are also expensive and time consuming. Most legal disputes never make it to a full-blown trial. They are settled, and those settlements may be confirmed by a trial judge. If this were not the case, the legal system would be hopelessly clogged with trials.

Appellate-level courts, as the name describes, deal with issues or outcomes at the trial court level that one of the parties in a dispute are not happy with or want to see reviewed. Most issues and verdicts can be appealed, but a “not guilty” verdict cannot be appealed. In general, appellate courts review the procedures of a trial to see whether it has been conducted fairly. For instance, let’s say that a defendant in a trial asked that a trial be moved to a different location (called a change of venue motion) because he believes that he cannot get a fair trial in the place where the crime was committed. The trial judge denies the motion, the trial proceeds, and the defendant is found guilty. The defendant’s lawyers might then file an appeal claiming that the trial judge made a mistake. The appeals court would have to decide whether or not to hear the appeal and then would hear arguments presented by both sides—the prosecution and defense in this case—about whether or not the decision was the right one.

Appellate courts do not try or retry cases. Rather, they hold hearings in which lawyers present briefs (written arguments) and oral arguments. They do not impanel juries and generally do not hear from witnesses or consider new evidence. Appellate judges make rulings on the basis of the applicable laws. They are there to confirm or reject the work of the trial court. Sometimes a trial court’s verdict will be reversed on a technicality, a fine point of the law or an issue that was not central to the trial but one that the appellate court deems important enough that it prevented a fair trial from occurring. Most trial judges try to follow the law and procedures as closely as possible because they do not want their work reversed by an appeals court.

Whereas different states organize their appeals courts in various ways, the federal courts have eleven appellate circuits. Each division covers several states and has at least a dozen judges working full time. Not every judge hears every case; panels of three or five judges may be formed to hear a particular case. A very important case might be heard by all of the judges in the division.

The highest court in any system is the supreme court. (Some court systems have a different name for its highest court.) These courts consist of a relatively few judges (called justices)—the U.S. Supreme Court traditionally has nine justices, but there is no law specifying the number—and they take on relatively few cases. A supreme court might decide to hear a case if the issues are large and go beyond the circumstances of that individual case. They might also decide to hear a case if they believe that a ruling on the case will help settle an important constitutional question. They might also hear a case if they believe that important mistakes have been made at the trial and appellate levels and those mistakes need to be corrected.

The U.S. Supreme Court is one of the nation’s most important institutions, and the nine justices are considered to be among the most powerful and influential of all Americans. One of the most important jobs of the Supreme Court is to interpret the U.S. Constitution, the basis for all federal laws and many state laws. The Supreme Court tells the nation what the Constitution means and how laws should be applied to be consistent with that meaning. What the court says in any area of American life has wide and lasting impact.

Throughout the twentieth century the Court made many decisions on the meaning and application of the terms “free speech” and “free press,” concepts that are found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Those decisions, some of which are explained in the remainder of this chapter, have had a major impact on the journalistic environment in which editors work.

The First Amendment

 

The thrust of most of today’s court battles, laws, and regulations involving the media is to keep editors from getting and publishing information or to punish them for having already published information. Many forces are allied in these battles against editors, from those who seek to protect their reputations to those who want to hide their actions from public scrutiny. Editors should remember that their primary responsibility is to publish accurate information, and they should do so in a way that can best serve their readers and that will help them to avoid as many legal hassles as possible.

The best weapon that editors have on their side is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Interpretation of the forty-five words of the First Amendment continues to be a controversial exercise. Yet as it stands, the First Amendment is a powerful statement for the right to speak and to publish and for the tradition of the United States as an open society. Editors should work diligently for a liberal and expansive interpretation of the First Amendment and should be unwilling to compromise on its basic meaning. The First Amendment offers basic protections for all citizens, not just editors, but editors are often required to fight a lonely battle in its defense.

Libel

 

Libel is the most dangerous problem facing an editor. Libel laws are extensive and in many areas are being strengthened. The threat of a libel suit often causes reporters and editors to withhold information that the public should have. Large libel judgments have a devastating financial impact on a publication and increase the chances that other libel suits will follow.

In the 1960s, courts, beginning with the U.S. Supreme Court’s New York Times v. Sullivan decision in 1964, built a substantial wall protecting publications from the devastating effects of libel suits. The Supreme Court realized that libel judgments were being used as a means of punishing and repressing publications that displeased particular individuals or groups. The court believed that for the First Amendment to work in the way in which it was intended, concerns about libel must not be an oppressive burden for editors.

Despite this, libel suits have become a more potent instrument of punishment and even repression. More and more suits are being filed, and the cost of defending them is enormous. Juries today are more inclined to interpret libel laws liberally and to award massive judgments against media organizations. One recent study has found that media defendants lose about 80 percent of the libel cases that go to trial and lose an even greater percentage of those that are decided by a jury. Many of these judgments are reversed on appeal, but by then the media organization has gone to considerable expense and trouble to defend itself. Courts might fashion a 1960s-like protection for the media at some point in the future, but until then, editors should be well versed in libel law and in the ways to avoid and to defend themselves in libel suits.

Libel is injury to reputation that exposes a person or group to hatred, ridicule, shame, contempt, or disgrace. Libelous material may also be considered to be that which lowers a person in the eyes of a part of the community or prevents a person from making a living in his or her chosen line of work. The law requires proof of four things before a libel action can be sustained: defamation, identification, publication, and fault.

Defamation. The words that a libel plaintiff complains of must cause harm to a person’s reputation, either in and of themselves or within their context.

Identification. The libel plaintiff must be identified as the object of the defaming words. The plaintiff cannot get by with simply saying, “I know the article was about me even though I wasn’t named”; rather, plaintiffs who are not named specifically must establish concretely that they were the objects of defamatory words. The idea of identification can become a prickly one when a libelous statement is made about a group of people. Courts have said that if the group is small enough for each individual to be identified, then each member of the group may have a valid libel case. If the group is a large one, such as an entire race of people, individuals cannot establish identification.

Publication. A libelous statement must be transmitted to a third party. It does not necessarily have to be printed or broadcast in the mass media. A letter that is mailed to a person who is not the object of the libel or a statement that is made to a small group of people may constitute publication.

Fault. In those situations in which the person named is a public official or public figure, it will be necessary for the person to establish that the media acted with actual malice. That is, it must be proved that the offending material was published either with knowledge of its falsity, with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity, or with deliberate intent to harm. When private people are named, those who are suing the media must normally establish media “negligence,” or carelessness.

Defenses against Libel

 

When a libel suit is filed, editors have a number of defenses available.

Truth. A number of states have written into their libel laws that truth is an absolute defense for libel—that is, if the truth of a libelous statement can be proved, the plaintiff has no case. That sounds good, but an editor should not fall into the trap of feeling safe because what he or she has printed is “true.” Truth can be a weak defense because a statement must be provably true, and the editor must present evidence that a statement is true. Even seemingly strong evidence can be challenged in court and can be open to varied interpretations. In a libel case, evidence is almost always open to various interpretations.

Privilege. Privilege is a good defense when a libel suit revolves around coverage of public or government meetings and actions. Courts have tried to protect reporters and editors from libel actions resulting from journalists having to report libelous statements that are made by public officials or during public events. Although the courts recognize two kinds of privilege, in general it is the lesser or weaker privilege that journalists have available as a defense. Qualified or conditional privilege usually applies to coverage that is about public issues or events. Such reports must be fair and accurate; they must also not be made with either traditional malice (spite or ill will toward the subject of the report) or actual malice (reckless disregard of probable falsity). Absolute privilege was originally accorded only to members of Congress, judges, and the like in the performance of their official duties. More recently, the courts have used this term in referring to reporting about what occurs in open court or what occurs on the floor of the legislature (either state or federal). The courts seem to assume that such coverage will be full, fair, and accurate.

Fair comment. The fair comment defense applies more to statements of opinion than to statements of facts. Many courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have recognized that the holding of opinions should not be penalized even though at times those opinions may be libelous. Although we have a long legal tradition that declares that there is no such thing as a false idea, courts are now less protective of this notion. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently cut back on the scope of protected opinion. Fair comment is a reasonable defense, but today it is not an especially strong one. When applied to editorial and arts criticism it is reasonably effective unless there is an intent to harm.

Constitutional Defenses

 

Although the traditional defenses for libel are good ones, in times of social tension they might not be sufficient. During the civil rights movement of the 1960s a new legal approach to libel was created. In New York Times v. Sullivan the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a constitutional defense against libel should be created that would encourage the press to report more aggressively information about public officials and public issues. To accomplish this, the Supreme Court established “actual malice.” Defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of whether the material is true or false, actual malice as a fault standard was designed to make it more difficult for public officials to win libel cases. This standard came to be applied to libel actions brought by public figures, people who typically are not public officials but who are nonetheless involved in important issues, typically by their own voluntary actions. For a brief period even those who were involuntarily caught up in public events were considered “public” and had to prove actual malice to be successful in litigation against the media. By 1974 the definition of “public figure” had become so all-inclusive that the Supreme Court began to restrict it. This process of redefinition is still occurring.

The “public” question is almost always the most important fact in libel cases involving the media. Because the court has never been explicit in defining who is a public figure, this decision is reached on a case-by-case basis. Courts have also been narrowing the definition of a “public official.”

The following are some guidelines that may help in avoiding libel suits. Although there is no way to guarantee that a libel action will not follow stories that do harm to a reputation, these guidelines may lessen that possibility. At the same time, should a defense prove necessary, adherence to these guidelines may make it easier to put forth a strong case in court.

Privacy

 

Compared to libel, privacy is a fairly recent legal concept. Libel has been around for centuries. Privacy is a twentieth century phenomenon. The right of privacy has achieved some constitutional standing in the federal courts and has been accorded either constitutional or common law status in most states. Some states have specific privacy laws. Consequently, legal privacy can mean one thing in some places and something else in others.

Most of us think of privacy as the right to be left alone. Legal privacy covers more than that, however. There are four major areas of privacy: appropriation, intrusion, publication of private facts, and false light.

Appropriation. Appropriation, or the right of publicity, is the right to use one’s name and image for one’s own benefit. It means that someone else should not take your name, your face, or your property and make money from it without your consent. For instance, an advertisement that uses your face or name in endorsing a product is illegal unless you have given your consent.

Newspapers make money in part by printing the names and pictures of people who are in the news. Generally, appropriation does not apply to news organizations, however. Courts have ruled that people who are in the public eye and who make news do not have the right of appropriation when it comes to their newsworthy activities. If a person makes a speech that is open to the public, he or she may be photographed, and those pictures may be run as part of the coverage of a news event. This is true only as long as the coverage is demonstrably newsworthy. If the news organization used the photograph in some other way, however, the question of appropriation might arise.

Intrusion. Newspeople may not go onto private property to gather information or to take pictures without the specific or implied consent of the property owner or legal resident. Nor may photographers use long-range lenses to take pictures of people in private places. Journalists are also barred from going into places where police or firefighters are investigating incidents unless there is a general policy allowing access or unless they have been specifically invited by the investigating officials.

If journalists take pictures or describe the activities of people in public places—places that can be viewed by the general public—such pictures or descriptions are not considered intrusion. If a photo or description focuses attention on a person or small group and there is a possibility of embarrassment or harm to someone’s reputation, that coverage could be the basis for a privacy action. If journalists illegally enter a place that is barred to the public or if they misrepresent themselves to gain entry, they may be guilty of intrusion.

Intrusion differs from other parts of privacy law in one important respect: The intrusion occurs when the illegal act occurs, not when something is published about it. Not long ago, intrusion was considered a minor problem for journalists, but recent court cases and the closing of many places to journalists have increased the possibility that a journalist might be accused of intrusion. The increased use of data retrieval systems and data banks to store private information also represents a danger for journalists. The journalist might not always realize when he or she is engaging in intrusive behavior.

Publication of private facts. The courts have deemed that some information is too private or embarrassing for publication, particularly when it concerns people who are not well known. Courts have been reluctant to define what facts may be too private or embarrassing for publication because of First Amendment considerations, but journalists still need to be careful.

An area that could mean trouble for media defendants here is the “passage of time.” Publication of private or embarrassing facts may be defended at the time because of their newsworthy nature. However, republication at a later date might not have the same defense. Some courts have ruled that newsworthy subjects can cease to be newsworthy after the passage of time, but they have not been specific about how much time must pass before this occurs. Editors should take care in such situations to make sure that the subjects they are writing about are still newsworthy and of public interest.

False light. Creating a false image of a person or placing that person in an atypical light can put an editor and a publication in legal difficulty. For example, a publication might run a story about mob control of gambling casinos and illustrate the story with pictures of people around a blackjack table. Those people might not be connected with organized crime, but their appearance with the story could place them in a false light. As such, they might have the basis for a successful suit against the publication.

Another area of false light is the inventing or fictionalizing of incidents about a real person. Several years ago a man wrote a book about a famous baseball player in which conversations between the player and acquaintances were reported verbatim. It turned out that the writer had made up these conversations, and the baseball player successfully sued the writer for placing him in a false light. The mixing of imagination and fact—adding detail, constructing conversations, and otherwise augmenting reality—is genuinely dangerous for journalists. Such activities, of course, are not the standard procedure for responsible journalists, and we would hope that journalists would have little fear of this area of privacy law.

False light is important to journalists, however, because of its connection with libel law. Often, when libel suits are filed, they contain concurrent charges of invasion of privacy and false light violations, and publications must defend themselves against these charges. It is sometimes difficult to defend against both these charges.

Defenses against Invasion of Privacy Charges

 

Two defenses are available for journalists who are charged with some varieties of invasion of privacy: newsworthiness and consent.

Newsworthiness. We have already referred to the newsworthiness of a subject several times in this chapter. Because of the First Amendment, courts have been reluctant to place limits on the editorial discretion of editors. Judging what is and is not news is the job of journalists, not judges. Consequently, newsworthiness, according to modern and accepted definitions of news, is a strong defense. Journalists are expected to cover events that are important and of interest to society, as long as they do so within the law. Courts have been generally willing to protect them in that activity.

Consent. Consent is a strong defense if it is obtained properly and given by people who can give their consent. Some people, such as children and the mentally handicapped, cannot always give their consent. However, consent to interview or to enter places, when it is given by authorized people, can be valuable to journalists. As a rule, photographers should carry picture release forms with them at all times and should ask their subjects to sign the forms if there could be any question about invasion of privacy. The same is true for all reporters who are dealing with non-news subjects. Although the granting of an interview is usually viewed as implied consent, some courts do not always hold to this view.

News Gathering

 

Journalists are encountering many difficulties in gaining access to places where news occurs and in getting records necessary for news stories. They are also coming under fire for wanting to keep certain information, such as sources, confidential. Legislatures and courts have had much to say about these controversies recently. Although many of these situations initially involve only reporters, it does not take long for editors to be brought into them. Editors should know the law thoroughly in these areas so as to be able to give the proper direction to reporters.

Access to places. One of the few victories that journalists have gained recently in the area of access to places was contained in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1980 Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia decision. The court confirmed that journalists have a constitutional right to gather news—something it had never said before—and that they have a limited right to gain access to places where news occurs. However, Richmond and later cases following its reasoning have been limited to access to courts.

Journalists are still restricted from many places where news can be obtained. As we mentioned earlier, reporters may not automatically have access to places where police or firefighters are investigating incidents. Access to these places is often controlled by a “custom and usage” rule—that is, what has been done before will be upheld as the rule. Courts have also ruled that officials may restrict access to federal prisons and prisoners.

State open-meeting laws have helped journalists to gain access to meetings of many government and quasi-governmental bodies. These laws require that most sessions of city councils, county commissions, school boards, and other regulatory bodies be open to the public, and they usually require that proper public notice be given of such meetings. There are weaknesses in many of these laws, however. Many states allow or require closure of meetings when the “name and character” of a person are being discussed. Because many topics can be discussed under this heading, this exemption allows officials a lot of leeway in closing meetings. Journalists should work for narrow interpretations of these exemptions and for changes in the laws to allow greater access to meetings of public bodies.

At the federal level, an open-meeting law requires that meetings of regulatory bodies be open to the public. Consequently, journalists now may attend most meetings of the various regulatory commissions. The flaw in this law is that staff meetings are not included. As a result, journalists who cover the federal agencies have said that the federal open-meeting law has not had much effect on their ability to report on the agencies’ activities.

Open records. Many states have laws that state that certain city, county, and state records must be open to the public. By the same token a number of laws restrict access to records, particularly medical records of people housed in state institutions, records of juvenile justice, and records of welfare and child assistance. What journalists should also realize is that many city, county, and state officials are as unaware of records laws as are most citizens. When officials try to withhold records from journalists, they should always be challenged, and journalists are at a distinct advantage when they know the law thoroughly.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) governs access to records at the federal level. The act was passed originally in 1966 and amended in 1974 and has the purpose of making available to the public as many records and documents as possible. The act contains nine exemptions, definitions of the records that an agency may legally withhold. Each of these exemptions has been the subject of litigation, but not always to the advantage of journalists. In a number of cases the Supreme Court has refused to expand the definition of a record and has granted agencies the right to refuse to release records in a number of questionable instances.

Getting records under the FOIA is a lengthy and sometimes costly procedure. Identifying what records are to be requested is often the most difficult part of the search. Agency public information officers and the Federal Register can help in this regard, but the journalist should be as specific as possible. When the identification has taken place, a letter should be written to the appropriate agency requesting the documents under the FOIA.

If a request is denied, an appeal should be made to the agency. This appeal must be filed soon after the denial. If the appeal is denied, a court suit may be initiated. Journalists should remember that the FOIA applies only to agencies of the federal executive branch, not to Congress or the judicial system. They should also remember that requests, and lawsuits, can be expensive. Although agencies can find many reasons for withholding records, the FOIA needs to be used to the fullest extent and expanded by journalists. Its original intent—to make government more open—is in line with the intent of the First Amendment, and journalists have a responsibility to see that this intent is carried out.

Shield laws. The question of the journalist’s privilege, or shield, has also been the subject of much controversy during the last two decades. Journalists have argued that they have the right to keep certain information (such as the names of sources) confidential even from police or courts. This privilege between a journalist and a source, they say, is much like that granted to lawyers and clients or to doctors and patients. Because many journalists use confidential sources in gathering information, many journalists believe that such a privilege is necessary if they are to remain effective.

More than half of the states have recognized this need and have enacted shield laws that give journalists some protection from having to reveal the names of sources during criminal investigations or court proceedings. Shield laws come with a variety of inherent problems, however. Some shield laws define journalists so narrowly that not everyone who considers himself or herself a journalist is protected by the laws. Other shield laws provide so many exceptions that they become meaningless. Because shield laws are state laws, the protection that they provide varies from state to state. Finally, courts have interpreted shield laws narrowly. There have been several instances in which journalists have gone to jail for failing to reveal information even in states that have “strong” shield laws. In general, shield laws today offer journalists little in the way of protection if a judge is determined to get the information that a journalist has. Editors and reporters should not place too much reliance on state shield laws.

No federal shield law exists, even though Congress has talked from time to time about passing one. Current Justice Department guidelines prevent federal prosecutors from forcing a journalist to reveal a confidential source unless that information goes to the heart of a case and all other avenues of obtaining that information have been explored. In the federal courts a qualified privilege based on the First Amendment has been recognized in some instances, but that privilege is not yet a strong one and is certainly nothing that journalists can rely on.

The whole question of the use of confidential sources is an ethical one as well as a legal one, and editors would do well to come to some mutual understanding with their reporters about it. Reporters should have a clear understanding of the editors’ attitude toward the use of confidential sources and their willingness to support a reporter’s claim of confidentiality. Confidential sources should be used with care and caution, and shield laws notwithstanding, reporters and editors should be prepared to go to jail if a promise of confidentiality is given.

Newsroom searches. The press scored one victory for confidentiality in 1980 when Congress passed the Privacy Protection Act, which in most instances prevents law enforcement officers from obtaining search warrants for newsrooms. This came in response to police use of such warrants rather than subpoenas to obtain information. A search warrant allows police to look at anything in the newsroom, including confidential files. A subpoena requires that certain information be produced but does not allow police to search for it. Journalists had been fearful that police would use search warrants to comb through their files at random, particularly since the Supreme Court had upheld such actions in the 1978 Zurcher v. Stanford Daily decision.

The present law requires that federal and state police officers present a subpoena for the information or evidence they are seeking except in a few circumstances. Journalists may then respond to the subpoena. Police officers may obtain a search warrant for a newsroom only to prevent physical harm to individuals or in cases in which national security information is involved or a journalist is believed to have committed a crime.

Constant Vigilance

 

The words of the First Amendment can be read as both a legal and a social statement. Legally, they grant certain rights and freedoms to all citizens. Socially, the words of the First Amendment describe a free and open society in which citizens can gather peaceably and talk with whomever they choose; where they can speak and write what they want to; where they can worship, or not worship, as they please; and where they can petition their government and engage in the political process without fear of repression.

These freedoms are delicate, however, and each of us can find good and rational reasons to restrict them. As editors and professional communicators, however, our inclinations should be to resist such attempts at restricting First Amendment freedoms. The ability of citizens to think, speak, and write freely is one of the few things that makes this nation different from most others in the world. Editors should take these freedoms personally and should work for their protection and expansion. It is their professional responsibility to do so, certainly, but more important, it is their social responsibility.