The Seattle Star

Most of the cases of contempt of court arise from two sorts of proceedings—contempt cases against people who publish or speak criticisms and cases for violations of injunctions.

Contempt of court at bottom was always such behavior by officials of the court, or outside parties, as to disturb the court in its proceedings. But some judges have always itched to punish for contempt any utterance in speech or print which merely disturbed their own personal feelings. Proper contempt proceedings enable the court to protect itself from disturbance in doing business.

Tyrannical contempt proceedings seek to punish people for saying what they think of their public officers—the judges.

The publishing of criticisms of a court does not interfere with its functions. It may make the judge angry, or it may humiliate him, but his court can go on just the same.

And in a democratic government, a court being a part of the government, it is necessary that people's mouths be not shut up as to the inefficiency, the unwisdom or the corruption of the courts. It is not only the right, but it may easily be the duty of any writer or speaker who believes that the courts are corrupt or inefficient, to say so.

Since 1914 the laws of the United States have forbidden contempt proceedings against the publishing of comments on cases pending. But the judges themselves construe these laws, and they have almost construed them away. It is time congress should act again.