The Herald’s Victory Over Libel
After year-long court battles, the newspaper celebrates the dismissal of civil and criminal libel suits brought by a school board member.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Just one year ago tomorrow, the Herald, in obedience to what it regarded as the proper functions of a newspaper, felt called upon to criticise the public acts of the school board of this district. Some of the members of the board, as individuals, saw fit to apply the criticisms to themselves personally by bringing action against the editor of the Herald, both for criminal and civil libel. The criminal suit ended in a verdict of not guilty, and the civil suit has been brought to a close by the failure of the plaintiff, Frank H. Owen, to prosecute the suit to a judgment. To have said these remarks apply to me, and then fail to prosecute the matter to the bitter end, must be much more hurtful than to have said nothing at all. The Herald repeats that while it makes no attack upon individuals, yet upon the public acts of any public body, it shall always comment with such a degree of approval or harshness as it honestly believes these acts merit.
“In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the correct advice to those contemplating libel suits is the same as that given by Punch to those contemplating matrimony: 'Don't.'”
This editorial reflects the enduring tension between local government officials and the press. It highlights the history of 'Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation' (SLAPP), a struggle that still defines the legal landscape for independent journalism in small towns.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.