tangents

news & views

by dal mcintire

The guttersnipe magazines, netting fantastic circulation by libelous smears of public and private lives, are themselves now under fire.

They've operated on three ideas: that millions get vicarious sex thrills from titillating scandalmongering; that gullible average readers fall for pseudo-bold innuendo, which hints at more than it says, but is legally safe; and that few victims dare sue, even against lies.

Several of these proliferating pornography sheets, thinly disguised in reversable Puritan cloaks, have labelled ONE as smut.

In mid-July, the pseudo-exposers were themselves exposed by TIME, NEWSWEEK, Exposé (a magazine legitimately so named) etc. Letters to editors began debating their demerits in the nation's press. (About this time, CONFIDENTIAL's ex-communist editor grabbed some publicity by a faked disappearance.)

Libel suits in seven figures were brought against CONFIDENTIAL by Robert Mitchum, Lizbeth Scott, Errol Flynn and Doris Duke. Sammy Davis, Jr. sued HUSH-HUSH and Humphrey Bogart got a retraction (and a promise never again to mention him or his wife) from RAVE. James and Pamela Mason also settled with RAVE (apparently almost without funds) for $1000 and a complete retraction. CONFIDENTIAL is not expected to get off so easily.

O

Famed movietown lawyer Jerry Giesler (handling the suits) vowed a

concerted effort to break the mags, hoping to get help from certain congressmen.

CONFIDENTIAL then tried a reverse, suing a newshen for recommending a horsewhipping party. Meantime Dallas' Neiman-Marcus won their libel suit against Mortimer & Lait's U.S.A. CONFIDENTIAL for "fairy colony" crack-public retraction & considerable cash.

Spread of such filth raises ticklish problem; not as trash (there's plenty elsewhere) but as damaging individual reputations. Easy remedy, widely favored, is suppression, a cure worse than the disease. Freedom of press must extend to publications that seem false, evil, perhaps harmful to majority. Right of honest expose is basic to freedom.

Yet we know, hard as it would be to prove in court, that these "journalists" are not honestly exposing vice, but are after the fast buck. It would be risky, though, for judges to rule on legitimacy (in light of intentions) of an exercise of free press.

Better the attack via libel action. The press assumes responsibility to insure citizens against unreasonable defamation and invasion of privacy. Damage suits now in progress (though notoriously hard to press) could well cut the profit from such publications. Hope this matter will not fuel the personal ambitions of those congresmen only too ready to heap on needless, hasty legislation.

one

10