Presents
Hit Man Lawsuit To Go Forward
On April 20, 1998, the United States Supreme Court refused without comment to hear an appeal filed by Paladin Press of Boulder, Colorado, in the HIT MAN lawsuit, opening the way for a civil jury trial. In a legal pleading known as a petition for a writ of certiorari, Paladin sought to reverse the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which found that the book Hit Man: A Technical Manual For Independent Contractors enjoyed no First Amendment protection because, in that court’s opinion (based in part on the stipulations of the parties), a jury could find that the book’s content amounted to the aiding and abetting of criminal conduct. The Fourth Circuit’s decision itself reversed an earlier district court ruling that threw out the case on First Amendment grounds, finding the book was protected speech because it did not constitute incitement of imminent lawless action. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear arguments in the ground-breaking free speech case was disappointing but not surprising to Paladin and its attorneys. Due to the crowded docket before it, the Court does not ordinarily hear civil cases before they’ve gone to trial. The ruling does not, however, preclude a review at a later date. The jury trial is slated to begin May 25, 1999, in the federal district court in Maryland that originally dismissed the lawsuite. For the first time in the history of the United States, a court has ruled that a book, available to the general public in bookstores and libraries across the country, enjoys no protection under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution from liability for damages caused by one of its readers. The fundamental question — can a book make somebody do something illegal he wouldn’t otherwise do? — is at the heart of this case. If the decision is ultimately allowed to stand, a new category of unprotected speech will be added to the narrow list — including libel, defamation, and obscenity — previously set forth by Supreme Court case law. The implications of such a ruling are obvious. Publishers of graphic true crime accounts and criminal techniques, including crime-avoidance techniques, will be fair game for predatory lawyers if a reader follows the text’s "instructions" to commit a crime. Incendiary revolutionary rhetoric from the 1760s to the 1960s and beyond, once proudly and uniquely protected by the U.S. Constitution, will similarly be threatened. The plaintiffs’ lawyers in this case steadfastly claim that the ruling will not extend beyond Paladin Press, but the fact is whenever laws are established that curtail once-cherished individual liberties, unintended consequences inevitably follow. RICO statutes, for example, were originally devised to bring organized criminals and racketeers to justice. Today they are being used to muzzle political protesters of all stripes. In fact, the "copycat" lawsuits have already begun. On March 8, 1999, the Supreme Court refused to block a lawsuit that seeks to hold filmmaker Oliver Stone and others responsible for a murderous rampage carried out by a couple who had seen Stone’s film Natural Born Killers. And on April 12, 1999, the parents of three students killed in a Kentucky school shooting filed suit against twenty five media companies, including the makers of the Leonardo DiCaprio film, The Basketball Diaries, claiming that the killer was influenced by "violence in the media" to open fire on his classmates. What a slippery slope it weaves, when the Supreme Court refuses to uphold the First Amendment rights of all Americans. The HIT MAN case is unique and one of the most important First Amendment cases in American legal history. After the jury trial, the appeals process will in all probability lead back to the Supreme Court, regardless of which side wins at the trial court. This process will likely take years, and it will be an expensive battle.Some facts about HIT MAN and the case against Paladin:
Will this precedent stop with Paladin? Are other companies that publish and sell books that contain information on crime, criminal techniques, military tactics, firearms, and a host of other topics in danger of copycat lawsuits holding them responsible for the actions of one of their customers? Will such companies be forced to excise any controversial material from their publications to avoid costly lawsuits? It is impossible to say at this point. Only time will tell how much damage this lawsuit has done to the First Amendment—which has always been the hallmark of American freedoms—and the once-vaunted "marketplace of ideas" it has encouraged and protected from censors of all persuasions.
Thank you to everyone—customers, friends, and strangers—who donated money to the legal defense fund, every penny of which went to help pay the legal fees of our dedicated, hard-working team of attorneys. We will continue to do our best to defend the First Amendment and hold the line against economic censorship.