Plain Dealer v. Cleveland

• 
• 

Published on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00

Written by Jeff Garvas

By Michael M. Schmieg

The Ohio Supreme Court recently released a decision in The State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Company v. City of Cleveland and the State ex rel Vindicator Printing Company v. City of Youngstown, 106 Ohio St. 3d 70. The Plain Dealer and the Youngstown Vindicator were seeking pictures of uniformed and plain clothes officers from the respective police departments to publish in their papers for various stories. The cities denied the requests on the basis that the officers privacy would be violated unless the officers consented. The officers did not.

Ohio Rev. Code Section 149.43 requires that public records be disclosed unless there is an exemption. One exemption is any personnel records which identify an individual as a police officer, firefighter or EMTand then further specifies additonal personal data that cannot be released. The Supreme Court ruled that reading the statute in plain language made it clear that these pictures were exempt from disclosure. The Plain Dealer argued that the statute did not mean what it said and that the Court should overrule it based upon the public''s right to know. The Court refused.

While this is not specifically related to concealed carry, the case is inidicative of the Plain Dealer's attitude toward the public. It could have published its stories without pictures and the stories would not have lacked content or meaning. All the pictures did was to identify the officers to the public and place them in potential danger from certain segments of society. The officers luckily had a statute to protect their privacy.

Concealed carry license holders do not have the same protection due to the provision placed in the law allowing the press to access the county lists of licensees. This provision was not intended to allow blanket publishing of the names of licensees in the press, but the Plain Dealer has been the leader in abusing this statute. This particular case shows that the Plain Dealer is not concerned with public safety or individual safety or rights, but that it arrogantly places its First Amendment rights over those of others.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, but it does not guarantee the press access to private and personal information. If the Plain Dealer acquired those pictures from other sources, it was free to publish them, but the Court held that the First Amendment rights do not trump other rights guaranteed by law.

This is all the more reason why we must work to have the legislature eliminate the press access to the license lists and make those records exempt from disclosure unless a liscensee is charged with a crime.

• < Prev
• Next >