Preoccupation with freedom of speech and press in America and abroad gathered law and journalism scholars from across the country in a public debate at the University’s Knight Law Center on Friday.
Public officials, such as Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Executive News Director Rod Gramer of KGW-TV Portland and Professor Frederick Schauer of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government based their discussions on the 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
University professor and Jonathan Marshall First Amendment Chair at the School of Journalism and Communication Kyu Ho Youm was co-organizer of the conference and spoke about the impact of post-Sept. 11 events.
“The need for us to engage in a soul-searching re-examination of the Sullivan case is more compelling now than ever. How do we exercise freedom of expression in a time of uncertainty and tension?” Youm said.
Participants discussed questions raised about journalists arrested for refusing to reveal their interview sources and today’s versions of speech oppression and libel litigation, to name a few.
During his keynote address, Merritt told of his experience as a judicial advisor in Iraq last summer when the groups of prosecutors, lawyers and court officials he was with had posted pictures on the Internet for their families back in the U.S. to see. They were asked immediately, in an e-mail from a national security official, to take down the images.
“I guess this was the predisposition of the military mind to choose order over freedom,” the judge commented.
Justice Rives Kistler of the Supreme Court of Oregon addressed his audience about statements that defame a person’s reputation, referring to the “actual malice” rule, effective as of the 1964 case.
“Having been schooled in a judicial system, I find that there is a troubling aspect in asking court to decide which kind of speech is right,” Kistler stated. “The right to protest and question the government is essential to the First Amendment, even if it contains falsity,” he continued.
“Do we feel lucky?” asked David C. Kohler, director of The Donald E. Biederman National Entertainment and Media Law Institute, making reference to the 1971 movie, Dirty Harry. As a past “clearance lawyer” for CNN, Kohler noted that the “actual malice” rule applied in the U.S. courts penalizes the accused with tens of millions of dollars for proven defamation of a public figure, as opposed to the UK, the alleged international libel capital, where the loser of a process pays cost and fees.
“The fact that we still have to ask this question of ourselves suggests the answer,” concluded Kohler.
As dean Laird Kirkpatrick of the University’s School of Law mentioned, the University itself is no stranger to controversial First Amendment matters. In the 1960s, for example, the Emerald faced the Oregon Supreme Court on issues based on disclosure of interview sources. More current issues at the University include whether or not the public interest research funded by student fees violates the First Amendment.
The general public present at the debate played its role by asking questions of the invitees in between speeches. G.A. Baumchen of Beaverton, a retired professional engineer, came to watch the debate primarily because he was “worried about the loss of civil liberties in the America that we are in today.”
“It would have been nice to see more of the general public,” said Baumchen, whose son is a graduate of the University’s Law School.
“The kind of public forums like the Sullivan conference is a wonderful way for the (School of Law and School of Journalism and Communication) to offer the public a valuable opportunity to debate about what defines the U.S. as a true democracy,” Youm said.
A South Korea-born citizen, Youm experienced a painful first-hand experience with living through an egregious violation of freedom of expression in the name of national security interests.
“My life in the U.S. during the past 24 years has been a growing process for me in developing a critical appreciation of the First Amendment,” Youm said. “The First Amendment is the defining element of our rule of law commitment to a democracy,” he continued.

Sabina Urdes is a freelance reporter for the Daily Emerald