Books and movies as natural born killers

Ombudsman

By Paul McMasters
First Amendment Ombudsman
First Amendment Center
pmcmasters@freedomforum.org

10.26.98

Printer-friendly page

When a lawsuit was filed two years ago against the publisher of a so-called "hit man manual," First Amendment advocates said that an adverse ruling in the case could have untold impact on books, movies, music and television shows.

Such concerns were dismissed as unfounded by the plaintiffs' lawyers.

They insisted that the suit against Paladin Press by the family of the victims of a contract killer was narrowly tailored and that going after this particular piece of trash — Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors — would in no way impose on First Amendment-protected speech.

"We are absolutely not here to ban books," said attorney Howard Siegel.

"There's a world of difference between a murder training manual and every other genre of speech," said attorney Rodney Smolla.

Unpersuaded, the First Amendment advocates were nonetheless comforted when Federal Judge Alexander Williams agreed with their concerns and granted a summary judgment to dismiss the suit in Rice v. Paladin.

But then in June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th District reversed Judge Williams and handed down a ruling that read more like a rant, saying in no uncertain terms that the case should go to trial because there simply was no good reason to protect this kind of speech.

Then the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of that ruling, sending the case back for trial. The discovery process is just about complete and another motion for summary judgment is scheduled for Nov. 20 in the Maryland court of Judge Williams. If this motion is not granted, trial date is set for May 25.

In the 4th Circuit decision, Judge Michael Luttig dismissed claims that if the courts failed to protect the Paladin book, the work of publishers, broadcasters and moviemakers would be made vulnerable. "This is simply not true," Judge Luttig wrote. "There will almost never be evidence proffered from which a jury even could reasonably conclude that the producer or publisher possessed the actual intent to assist criminal activity."

For his part, attorney Siegel continued to insist that the Paladin suit would have no impact on other works: "Siegel maintains that if Paladin goes down, the sky will not fall on free expression," reported The Washington Post on July 26. Siegel actually cited Oliver Stone's movie, "Natural Born Killers," as a work that would have no worry about such a lawsuit prevailing against it.

That view apparently does not hold with a number of Louisiana judges who have considered the suit by the family of a victim in a shooting spree by two people who said they were incited by "Natural Born Killers." A few days ago, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the "Natural Born Killers" case could proceed. The decision upheld a Louisiana appeals court ruling that relied heavily on the 4th Circuit's forceful opinion in Rice v. Paladin.

So much for unfounded concerns.

If the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision holds up under appeal, the "Natural Born Killers" case will go to trial despite the fact that no U.S. court has ever held the maker or distributor of a movie liable for "copycat crimes."

What book or movie or song will its producers or creators have to endure the cost and pain of defending next?

The Turner Diaries, the novel by William Pierce that some say served as a blueprint for Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing? Or The Technological Bluff, by Jacques Ellul, and the novels of Joseph Conrad that were said to have influenced Unabomber Theodore J. Kaczynski? Or Final Exit, the best-selling book on suicide published by the Hemlock Society?

The fact is that there are no limits to the limits on free expression if publishers, broadcasters and the producers of movies and music can be held responsible for the crimes of those who try to avoid responsibility by saying the book or the movie or the music "made me do it."

The lawyers in the hit-man manual case set out to punish the publisher of "a recipe for murder." They should have known that trying to fine-tune the First Amendment is a recipe for disaster.

Paul McMasters can be e-mailed at pmcmasters@freedomforum.org

Recent Ombudsman columns

• Is the press guilty of treason?
  Many regard robust exercise of First Amendment rights by either the press or the people as a dangerous problem in the fight against terrorism.08.08.02

• The Supreme Court's 'secondary' thoughts
  While Alameda Books ruling appears to bolster efforts to regulate adult businesses, several justices express concern that evolving secondary-effects doctrine threatens First Amendment.07.30.02

• Putting corporate security before national security
  Government is asking private citizens to take on more responsibilities, but is considering bribing private businesses to enlist in war on terrorism.07.22.02

• Congress must champion access
  Government information must be branded as crucial to democracy, to responsible governance and to freedom.07.11.02

• Denial of access shushes the democratic dialogue
  Some restrictions are warranted to guard against attack, but as government demands more information of Americans, it's asking Americans to demand less information from government.12.12.01

Related

'Hit Man' publisher settles Oregon lawsuit
Bobby Joe Wilson sought at least $4.5 million in damages from Paladin Press; neither side will discuss terms of the deal.  02.27.02

Oregon woman claims would-be killer used 'instruction' book
Bobby Jo Wilson seeks at least $4.5 million from Paladin Press in second lawsuit over 'Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors.'  09.11.00

Browse more Ombudsman columns