E-Mail This Article to a Friend The Eighth Annual Muzzle Awards (continued)

The other nine winners are:

Douglas Woodlock

Denounces ‘concentration camp’ protest pen — then approves it

The tiny, razor-wire-enhanced protest pen outside the FleetCenter during last July’s Democratic National Convention was such an affront to the First Amendment — that is, to "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" — that it seems somehow inadequate to bestow only one Muzzle Award.

But if there were a single symbol of what went wrong, it was surely the actions of US District Court judge Douglas Woodlock. It would be bad enough if he just didn’t get it. Woodlock’s stance was worse than that: through his words, he demonstrated that he understood perfectly what an affront the pen was to freedom of expression. And through his deeds, he showed that he didn’t care.

Woodlock’s tut-tutting during a pre-convention tour of the pen was aimed at reassuring skeptics about his oh-so-deep concerns. "I at first thought, before taking a view, that the characterization of the space being like a concentration camp was litigation hyperbole," he said. "Now I believe it’s an understatement." Incredibly, the judge then turned around and approved the pen, saying that, "given the constraints present at the location and the reasonable safety concerns, there is no injunctive relief that I could fashion that would vindicate plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights" (see "Wanted: Leadership," Editorial, July 30, 2004).

The protests at the DNC turned out to be more of a love-in than a security threat. Before issuing his ruling, Woodlock should have paid attention to Emma Lang, an activist who was amazed to hear that authorities were worried about the possibility of protesters wielding urine-filled water pistols. "I wish they’d wake up and smell the coffee on the urine thing," she said. "It’s very scary that they think of us as being that scary. If they could see what we really do is give each other hugs" (see "Free Radicals," News and Features, August 13, 2004).

As further evidence that the First Amendment isn’t safe when Judge Woodlock is presiding, he also ruled, in December, that the Back Bay Architectural Commission had the right to ban newspaper boxes. Woodlock could have stood up for the principle of protecting free speech in the public square. Instead, he caved in to complaints that news boxes are somehow messy. Well, so is democracy.

Michael O’Keefe

Prosecutor pressures men to provide DNA samples

Last January, a 69-year-old retiree named Bruce Levenson explained why he willingly provided a saliva sample to law-enforcement officials in Truro as part of the three-year-old investigation into the murder of fashion writer Christa Worthington. "If it gives them one less suspect, that’s fine by me," Levenson said. "I don’t have anything to hide."

That’s precisely the sort of attitude that Michael O’Keefe, the district attorney for Cape Cod and the Islands, was counting on in his call for "voluntary" DNA testing. This stunning violation of personal liberties garnered national attention. And O’Keefe made it eminently clear what his real purpose was by saying that he’d be "compelled to look at why" any man would choose not take part. As John Reinstein, legal director for the ACLU of Massachusetts, said, "The only thing it reasonably does is narrow down the pool of people who they ask. That does suggest that the refusal to take the test is in fact what they’re looking for."

The murder of Worthington, 46, was a shocking crime, and O’Keefe’s inability to solve it was a source of considerable frustration to the tiny Cape Cod community where she lived. But a University of Nebraska study had found that the sort of mass DNA sweep O’Keefe called for rarely produces useful information (see "Spitting on Our Liberties," Editorial, January 14). That turned out to be the case with Worthington, too. Because on April 15, police arrested Christopher McCowen, a 33-year-old laborer who had collected trash at Worthington’s home, and charged him with the killing.

McCowen, considered a possible suspect right from the beginning, had indeed supplied a DNA sample to authorities, which is how they ultimately were able to connect him to the crime scene. But he’d provided it in March 2004 — nearly a year before O’Keefe’s office began trying to shame each of Truro’s 750 men into spitting on cue.

Those men who went along with O’Keefe’s sweep can only hope that the DA kept his promise to destroy all the samples he’d collected once the crime had been solved.

Ernest Torres

Judge punishes press over anonymous sources

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, but it does not guarantee journalists the right to protect their confidential sources. Yet anonymity can be a crucial tool in exposing government wrongdoing. Consider W. Mark Felt, the former top FBI official who recently revealed that he was Deep Throat, a key source in bringing down the criminally corrupt Nixon administration.

As the late Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart wrote in his dissenting opinion in the 1972 Branzburg v. Hayes decision, "The reporter’s constitutional right to a confidential relationship with his source stems from the broad societal interest in a full and free flow of information to the public. It is this basic concern that underlies the Constitution’s protection of a free press." Mindful of Stewart’s stirring words, Branzburg judges have generally tried in the years since to strike a balance before ordering reporters to reveal their sources.

Unfortunately, US District Court judge Ernest Torres thinks otherwise. Last December, Torres sentenced Jim Taricani, a reporter for WJAR-TV (Channel 10) in Providence, to four months of house detention. Taricani’s offense: refusing to reveal who had violated a court order by giving him a videotape of Frank Corrente, a top aide to then–Providence mayor Buddy Cianci, accepting a bribe. Taricani’s punishment surely would have included prison had it not been for concerns about his fragile health. Yet Taricani’s report was in the best tradition of the First Amendment, showing government corruption at its most blatant.

Taricani’s integrity won him the respect of his peers. Last November, the Providence Phoenix (to which he is an occasional contributor) named him a "Local Hero," and he recently received an award from the Radio-Television News Directors Association. "I believe to this day that we were right in airing this tape," Taricani said in a recent interview (see "Back on the Beat," Providence Phoenix, June 3). He added that "this was such a vivid example of public corruption that the public should see it."

If Judge Torres had had his way, it never would have happened.