This week, we at the Herald and our parent company, Forum Communications, find ourselves in court again.
This is not a position we particularly relish.
But it's one we assume when we think it's necessary.
For the Herald, the important issue this week is a judge's order sealing the filings in UND's case against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. UND has challenged the NCAA's ban on its use of the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo.
A second case involving the murder trial of Moe Gibbs is going on this week, as well, but the Herald has only peripheral interest in that issue. Put simply, it's occurring outside our normal coverage area.
ADVERTISEMENT
The essential issue is the same in both cases, however, and it is worth expressing again and again and again.
The issue is public access to the courts.
Of course, newspapers have a particular interest in an open judicial process because only if the process is open can we fully report what goes on there.
At its heart, however, the issue has less to do with newspapers than it does with individuals. In a society that depends on the rule of law, individuals must have access to the legal process. Unfortunately, individuals don't always have the resources to ensure their own access, so newsgathering organizations serve as surrogates.
Frankly, that's how we see our role in these two cases.
If Judge Lawrence Jahnke's order in the Sioux name case were to stand, it would set a precedent for sealing other court filings.
If a judge's order closing some proceedings in the Gibbs trial were to stand, other defendants might find proceedings closed, as well.
This might not seem to concern any one of us, and this morning, it probably doesn't. But of course, there's always the chance that any one of us could get ourselves in legal trouble.
ADVERTISEMENT
Transparency in the legal system is a bulwark of legal rights, quite simply, and so we see our advocacy for openness as a responsibility of citizenship.
It's also a business decision, as it happens. There's great interest in the Gibbs trial and in legal proceedings involving the Sioux name.
Our business depends on addressing that interest.
Critics call that sensationalism, but in fact, these individual incidents make almost no difference in newspaper circulation. We don't sell any more newspapers because we challenge closing of papers in the Sioux name case.
But our business depends on access to information on a day-to-day basis. If we stand by while free access is eroded, our ability to provide information of public interest will be jeopardized.
Then, our franchise will be threatened and your access to information will be at risk.
These are the general principles that drive our action against restricting access to the court system.
Of course, there are arguments peculiar to every individual instance. In the Sioux name case that is of most interest in Grand Forks, our argument is that this closure is well outside the guidelines that have been established for North Dakota courts.
ADVERTISEMENT
We didn't rush into this judicial action. In fact, we waited almost a fortnight because we didn't want to jeopardize the possibility of a settlement in the case.
By late last week, it was apparent that no settlement was imminent, so we went ahead to challenge the judge's ruling sealing filings in the case.
Not least among the arguments against our action was one put forward by Judge Jahnke himself, who said that the one thing this case doesn't need is more attorneys' fees. What's more, he indicated in his initial order that the filings would be opened late in October. That's about the time our challenge of his order will be heard.
These arguments notwithstanding, the principle is an important one, and so we went ahead. Even if the immediate case isn't affected by the outcome of our action, at least we have challenged - and headed off, we hope - the possibility that this kind of arbitrary secrecy will become the norm in North Dakota courts.
