-
CHAPTER NINE Journalists and the First Amendment
- Temple University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
CHAPTER NINE Journalists and the First Amendment A FEDERAL GRAND JURY in Washington handed up indictments in the summer of 1956 against Alden Whitman, Seymour Peck, Robert Shelton, and William Price. Each was charged with one count of contempt of Congress for each question he had refused to answer: nineteen counts against Whitman, five against Peck, three against Shelton, and eight against Price.1 If convicted, they faced a fine of as much as $1,000 and a jail term as long as a year—on each count. Each pleaded not guilty and posted a $1,000 bond. Under the mistaken impression that they could post bond with personal checks, Peck found himself whisked into a jail cell in a scene reminiscent of the Hollywood Ten.“They put me in the high security division, among the most dangerous characters, without any explanation as to why,” he recalled. “I had a man above me who was awaiting execution.” Peck’s apprehensive family called I. F. Stone, who arranged for his bail.2 Many lawyers during the 1940s and 1950s shunned such cases for fear of being accused of helping former Communists escape prosecution, but a few were driven by a sense of social justice, no matter the professional risks.3 Among them was the well-known Washington lawyer Thurman Arnold, who agreed to take Whitman’s case. A lawyer in Franklin Roosevelt ’s Agriculture Department in the mid-1930s, Arnold later headed the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department. By the mid-1950s he had established himself as an effective defender of employees who ran into trouble before loyalty review boards.4 The noted civil liberties lawyer JOURNALISTS AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT 123 Joseph Rauh Jr. agreed to represent Shelton. Rauh was a founder of the fiercely anti-Communist Americans for Democratic Action in 1947, and he was outspoken critic McCarthy’s method of punishing and stigmatizing law-abiding citizens.5 William Price would be represented by Leonard Boudin, a New York civil liberties lawyer whose record of helping people in distress went back to the 1930s. In the early 1950s he had handled some of the most controversial political issues involving witnesses’ rights.6 New York lawyer Telford Taylor took on Seymour Peck. Taylor had built a illustrious career in private practice after serving as a principal prosecutor of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg following World War II, and he became an outspoken critic of McCarthy during in the 1950s.7 Although the journalists managed to enlist an impressive roster of prominent lawyers, they faced potentially staggering legal costs. The New York Civil Liberties Union agreed to underwrite Whitman’s because he faced the largest number of charges. The organization also agreed to help Shelton, because his subpoena raised particularly unusual civil liberties questions.8 The journalists also issued an appeal to their colleagues through a letter published in the newspaper trade magazine Editor and Publisher. “The right to skewer a newspaperman for what he has thought in the past, what he thinks now, or what he may think in the future would surely be a big step in the direction of authoritarian journalism wherein the prime test of a newspaperman is his political conformity,”it said.9 They also asked the Newspaper Guild for help. “We feel that in our honest application of the Bill of Rights, combined with other ethical and legal reasons, our refusal to answer certain questions about communism was in the finest American democratic tradition,” they said. “We feel that we responded honorably as newspapermen and trade union members who have a duty to resist abuse of Congressional power when face to face with it.”10 The New York Guild sent a terse letter telling them that the board had voted to “table and file” their request.11 The national guild sent a similar response.12 Whitman complained that the guild was ignoring important issues involving the First Amendment: Can a Congressional committee, on pain of contempt, force a newspaper man to disclose the names of fellow newspaper men (and Guild members ) who, at some time in the past, may have shared what are now discredited political opinions? Since disclosures are followed by firings— among other consequences—it is clear that effective press freedom—the right of members of the press to practice their profession without political restrictions—is abridged.13 [44.192.75.131] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 00:08 GMT) 124 CHAPTER NINE The guild brushed aside Whitman’s admonitions and informed...