This description of the historic court case was written by Jane Kirtley in the
American Journalism Review:
Censorship at 75 Cents a CopySome sheriff's deputies in St. Mary's County, Maryland, were as steamed as
the region's famous blue crabs.
The November 1998 election was approaching. Their favored candidates,
incumbent Sheriff Richard Voorhaar and lawyer Richard Fritz, running for state's
attorney, were on the ballot.
But the problem was that the local weekly newspaper, St. Mary's Today, had a
long history of criticizing county officials in general and law enforcement
personnel in particular. The newspaper's brand of journalism was robust, to say
the least. It had called one of the deputies a "drunk," another a "child abuser"
and a third a "shoeshine boy."
The deputies didn't take kindly to this sort of abuse. According to court
documents, they claimed that the paper was "unsavory" and published "outright
lies." What really worried them, though, was that St. Mary's Today was due to
publish on Election Day, and the deputies anticipated the paper would take
potshots at Voorhaar and Fritz without giving them an opportunity to defend
themselves.
So, as told in court records, the deputies cooked up a scheme to "protest
[their] disagreement" with St. Mary's Today Publisher Kenneth Rossignol's
"irresponsible journalism." They agreed to buy as many copies of the newspaper
as they could from stores and vending machines before citizens could purchase
them. They even planned to stage a "bonfire party" afterward. That ought to
"piss off" Rossignol, they figured.
The deputies checked with Voorhaar and Fritz, both of whom approved the plan
and kicked in some money to support the enterprise. Fritz advised them that it
might be a good idea to get receipts to prove that they had bought the papers,
not stolen them.
On election eve, six deputies set out on their mission. They were off duty,
driving personal cars, and out of uniform. But two of them carried service
revolvers. One wore a Fraternal Order of Police sweatshirt. And they were well
known to the clerks in the convenience stores who routinely gave them free
coffee and soft drinks.
When the deputies asked to buy all of one store's newspapers, a clerk later
testified that they made it "real apparent [that] they could make my life here a
living hell" if he declined to sell them.
In a few hours, the deputies visited 40 stores and 40 newsboxes, cadging at
least 1,300 copies of St. Mary's Today, which has a circulation of 5,300. One
witness later claimed he could not find "any papers anywhere in the county."
And sure enough, as the deputies had expected, the paper carried a front-page
headline declaring "Fritz Guilty of Rape," referring to the candidate's guilty
plea to a charge of carnal knowledge of a 15-year-old more than 30 years
earlier, along with a story about a complaint filed against Voorhaar over his
handling of a sexual harassment claim.
Rossignol filed a federal civil rights suit a year later, claiming that the
officials had violated the First, Fourth and 14th Amendments, as well as state
law. A federal district judge threw out the suit, finding that the deputies had
not acted "under color of state law" when they bought the papers, but as private
citizens. And because no "police action" occurred, Fritz and Voorhaar got off,
too.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saw it differently. In a unanimous
opinion by Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a three-judge panel ruled in January
that the deputies' conduct amounted to a "systematic, carefully organized plan
to suppress the distribution of St. Mary's Today" because they disagreed with
its viewpoint, and to "retaliate against those who questioned their fitness for
public office." That's exactly the "kind of suppression of political criticism
that the First Amendment was intended to prohibit," Wilkinson observed.
Just because the deputies were acting outside their normal working hours
didn't mean they weren't using the power of their office to carry out their
plan, the court found. Like law enforcement officials who conspired with Ku Klux
Klan members to intimidate former slaves, "the conduct here...cannot be absolved
by the simple expedient of removing the badge," Wilkinson wrote.
If the deputies disagree with what St. Mary's Today had to say, they are free
to denounce the paper, Wilkinson suggested. They can even sue for libel. But as
he concluded, "to summon the organized force of the sheriff's office to the
cause of censorship" "belongs to a society much different and more oppressive
than our own." One where the government, not the citizen, decides what is the
truth and what are "outright lies."