RIGHTS WATCH : Paying for the Story

Among many other things, state Assembly Speaker Willie Brown is obviously a highly intelligent and imaginative legislator. But his proposal to prohibit witnesses in criminal trials from selling their stories before or during a trial would push California onto very tricky ground.

Brown--like fellow legislator Sen. Quentin Kopp (I-San Francisco), who favors a similar approach--is utterly appalled by the practice of witnesses pedaling their testimony to the sort of “news organizations” that have no moral or ethical reservations at all about checkbook journalism.

Many ordinary citizens were disgusted to hear that witnesses in the O. J. Simpson case were selling their stories to frenzied media outlets. The problem is not only that the practice is questionable, but that it may possibly complicate Simpson’s criminal trial. “A witness who tells the truth, but admits being paid for the story, may lose credibility in the eyes of the jury,” Brown argues.

Alas, Brown’s proposal lands right on the knife’s edge of the perennial dilemma: rights in conflict. The American system requires a fair trial, but it also requires the greatest possible freedom of speech and the press.

Prohibiting witnesses from taking money for their stories is not the same as banning them from talking to the press, as Brown is careful to point out. But when all is said and done, his proposal could mean less freedom for both the individual and the press. In the final analysis, Brown’s cure, which is constitutionally dubious anyway, could prove worse than the disease.