The Perils of Being Too Public

One of the pet peeves of Bill Buckley's conservative National Review is Linus Pauling, the Nobel-prizewinning biochemist who espouses no end of peace causes and regularly attacks U.S. foreign policy. In a strident article in 1962, the Review accused Pauling of "acting as megaphone for Soviet policy" and lending his "name, energy, voice and pen to one after another Soviet-serving enterprise." A second Review article took note of the number of libel suits brought by Pauling and derided the "brazen attempts at intimidation of the free press by one of the nation's leading fellow travelers."

With that Pauling added the National Review to the list of publications he was suing, and demanded $1,000,000. The case had hardly come to trial last month in New York State Supreme Court when it bogged down. While jurors nodded, Pauling's attorney, Michael Levi Matar, plodded laboriously from one niggling point to the next. He kept Mrs. Pauling on the stand for hours while he led her through long explanations of awards garnered by her husband. He questioned Pauling himself about his beliefs and actions at interminable length. Justice Samuel J. Silverman was visibly irritated. "I fail to see where this line of questioning will lead. Move along." Finally, last week, the trial came to an abrupt end. Silverman sustained a defense motion to dismiss the suit.

Another Sacrifice. Silverman's ruling relied heavily on the New York Times v. Sullivan. In that 1964 case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that no "public official" could recover damages for libel unless he could prove "malice," that is, a "reckless disregard" of truth. Silverman extended the Supreme Court doctrine to cover Pauling, who is admittedly no public official, but who has become politically prominent as a result of his activities and public statements. "Dr. Pauling," wrote Silverman, "has added the prestige of his reputation to aid the causes in which he believes. I merely hold that by so doing he also limited his legal remedies for any claimed libel of his reputation. And perhaps this can be deemed another sacrifice that he is making for the things he believes in."

In weighing claims of "free public discussion" against concern for "individual reputation," Silverman decided that the "Supreme Court has shifted the balance sharply in favor of the freedom of public discussion." Whether the court has in fact shifted that sharply remains to be seen when the Pauling case and others like it are appealed. To date, lower courts have been divided on the question. Some judges, like Silverman, have expanded the Sullivan decision to include "public figures" as well as "public officials." Others have stuck to a stricter interpretation. General Edwin A. Walker, for example, was clearly a public figure when he turned up at the University of Mississippi's integration riots in 1962; he had earned his share of notoriety by indoctrinating his troops with John Birch literature. But when he appeared on campus he was not acting in any official capacity, and he has won two big libel suits against the A.P. which sent out stories accusing him of helping to incite the riots.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.