In the past, I’ve questioned the policy of keeping the names of alleged sex offense victims out of the newspaper. But in the end, that should be the decision of the news organization doing the reporting – not the judge in a particular case. And it is precisely such a case that I find disturbing here.

The Daily Press in Victorville reported yesterday that a judge ordered a reporter not to print the last name of a witness who testified in open court — a mandate the newspaper claimed was illegal.

The Daily Press said Judge Bridgid McCann gave the order to one of its reporters when an alleged victim in a sexual-abuse case testified in San Bernardino County Superior Court.

The alleged victim, a 24-year-old U.S. Army soldier, wore a name badge but his name was not on the court record when he testified at a preliminary hearing against his father, Richard Swank.

Daily Press Editor Don Holland said the judge called the reporter and attorneys to the bench and ordered that the last name of Swank's son not be printed.

And therein lies the problem. This manÂ’s name was on display for anyone in the courtroom to see. Any person who saw it could legally speak it or otherwise communicate it. The judge, however, singled out a particular media outlet and imposed a gag. That is something our First Amendment cannot and should not permit.

Of particular interest is the position taken by the paperÂ’s editor.

He said all the judge had to do was "rescind your order, ask nicely and we won't run the name.

Especially since they had never intended to publish the name in the first place.

But at this point, I’d argue that there is almost an obligation to publish the name – because to fail to report it now that it is a matter of public interest in a case where a judge issued an unconstitutional order is irresponsible.

Posted by: Greg at 01:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.