Differing Rights

Even after the Senate censured him, Connecticut Democrat Thomas Dodd went ahead with plans to bring a libel suit against Columnists Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson. Most lawyers knew, however, that he had little chance of success in the wake of the Supreme Court's 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision, which makes it all but impossible for a public official to win libel suits unless he can prove malice by the defendant. Recognizing that fact, Dodd last week withdrew the libel action, though he continued to press suit against the newsmen for having conspired in the stealing of certain of his private documents.

Noting that Dodd was only facing up to "realities," District Court Judge Alexander Holtzoff wryly reprimanded his superiors. "As a result of Times v. Sullivan," he said, "libel law was changed by the Supreme Court in a most revolutionary manner. A court which had previously been concerned with the rights of individuals has limited the rights of holders of public office." The libel limitation, concluded Holtzoff, "is now one of the penalties of being a high official."

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