Papers Can Bar Activism Political Activity By Reporters Can Be Prohibited, Court Rules

A newspaper can prohibit outside political activity by reporters to maintain editorial credibility, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the case of a Tacoma journalist who was reassigned to a non-reporting job after she campaigned for a gay-rights initiative.

“I’m obviously disappointed, but it’s not over yet,” said Sandy Nelson, 40, a copy editor at The News Tribune in Tacoma, south of Seattle. Nelson was the paper’s education reporter in 1990 when she was reassigned.

Jim Lobsenz, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who is representing Nelson, said the case probably will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, though it is doubtful the court would agree to hear the case.

Usually, the U.S. Supreme Court hears cases in which lower courts are divided on an issue.

“Nothing quite like this case has ever produced an appellate decision,” Lobsenz said.

Several years ago, a New York Times reporter who covered the Supreme Court was seen marching in an anti-abortion demonstration and told by the paper she could not be involved in such activity if she wanted to remain a reporter, Lobsenz said. But that incident did not result in a lawsuit.

In its ruling handed down Thursday, a majority of the state Supreme Court said a state law protecting employees from discrimination on the basis of their political activities does not apply to newspapers.

“Editorial integrity and credibility are core objectives of editorial control and thus merit protection under the free press clauses,” Justice Richard Sanders wrote.

David Zeeck, executive editor of the The News Tribune, said the ruling was a vindication of the paper’s position that it has the fundamental right to determine how the paper will be staffed, and whether it can tell someone they cannot be involved in outside political activity if they want to be a reporter.

“Our role in this community is to be an independent gatherer and reporter of the news,” Zeeck said. “Sandy’s political activity compromised our ability to be perceived as being able to do that job.”

A nationally recognized expert in First Amendment issues said the ruling was not a surprise.

“The legal issue involved here is not the First Amendment, but employer and employee rights,” said Floyd Abrams, a New York City lawyer who frequently represents the New York Times, ABC News and other media.

“It’s a question of what policies newspapers should have regarding the activities of their journalists on their own time,” he said. “And that’s a very difficult question. Papers have come out with different policies. But I don’t view this as a First Amendment defeat, nor as a surprising decision.”

Don Pember, a media expert and law professor at the University of Washington, agreed.

“This case does not go to the heart of the First Amendment,” he said.

But Pember said he is concerned the ruling will further limit what reporters can do when they are not working.

“This might be a ‘go’ sign to other publications,” he said.

Nelson was told she could return to her reporting job, but only if she gave up her off-duty political activity, other than displaying a bumper sticker on her car.

She sued McClatchy Newspapers Inc., which owns The News Tribune, arguing that the reassignment violated a provision of the Fair Campaign Practices Act that prohibits employers from discriminating against workers based on their political activities.