editorials, letters, commentary and perspective
j
!
What do you think of
the US. Forest
Service seizure of the
notes, film and
camera of two
journalists at Warner
Creek? Let us know.
EDITORIAL
Mediation process improves our legal system
■ OUR
OPINION:
Keeping legal
disputes out of the
courts and in the
hands of involved
parties brings
speedy resolutions
and responsibility
CONTACT US
What do you think?
Write us a letter
expressing your opin
ion or E-mail us at
ode@oregon.uore
gon.edu
Letters to the editor
must be limited to no
more than 250
words, legible, signed
and the identification
of the writer must be
verified when the let
ter is submitted.
The Emerald reserves
the right to edit any
letter for length or
style.
If you get into a car accident and are
forced to sue the other person in
order to reclaim damages, you are
looking at two to three years before
the problem is resolved in the courts.
Now, imagine for a moment that you
are given the opportunity to sit down
with the guy who hit your car. The two
of you will meet with a facilitator who
will guide you to a mutual resolution
next week. The decision you agree on
will be signed by a judge who will
enforce it if necessary.
This is mediation. It is the future of
our justice system in America, and it is a
step in the right direction.
The courtrooms of America are
clogged with all kinds of disputes that
could be settled through mediation.
Many law professors see a variety of
ways to apply the process, from divorce
and business contracts to personal injury
and criminal cases.
In the last decade, this country has
adopted a mentality that a lawsuit will
solve a problem or make some money.
Mediation is the perfect remedy to a
growing problem.
First, the people who have legitimate
disputes can look to this process to help
them find a solution that works for
everyone involved. Secondly, the people
who are only out to work the system for
their own gain, will be forced to sit down
in a session to find resolution. This kind
of face-to-face interaction may weed out
those people who manipulate the legal
system.
The most positive aspect of mediation
is that it forces people to take responsi
bility for their actions. Litigants do not
have a lawyer to hide behind; a lawyer
who can argue their clients’ way out of
accountability. Mediation gives individ
uals an opportunity to air their concerns
in an open environment. A place where
their concerns are central to finding a
resolution.
Of course, not all cases can be resolved
through mediation. Going to court is
sometimes the only way to solve some
disputes. But for the majority of people
who are willing to make an honest effort
to find resolution, this is a great start
toward an efficient judicial system.
This editorial represents the opinion of
the Emerald editorial board.
Li
COURT SYSTEM
I
MEDIATION
HISTORICAL
In 1989,
Multnomah
| County Courts
j developed a
mediation
program to
give
participants in
lawsuits an
opportunity to
work out a
solution for
themselves
before going
to court.
In 1993,
University of
Oregon School
of Law held its
first mediation
clinic in
conjunction
with the Lane
County
Courts.
Students and
faculty learned
hands-on
mediation
skills.
In 2020, the
State of
Oregon will
have adopted
a fully
integrated
dispute
resolution
system. The
system seeks
to provide the
public with a
variety of legal
options before
going into
litigation.
The Oregon Daily Emerald is published daily Monday through
Friday during the school year and Tuesday and Thursday during
the summer by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co. Inc., at
the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. A member of the
Associated Press, the Emerald operates independently of the
University with offices at Suite 300 of the Erb Memorial Union.
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Emerald editor
ial board; signed columns represent the opinion of the columnist.
The Emerald is private property. The unlawful removal or use of
papers is prosecutable by law.
Editor-In-Chief: Steven Asbury
Associate Editors: Andrea DeYoung, Kristin Bailey
Editorial Editor Tiffany Smith
Sports Editor: Mark McTyre
Copy Editor Tracy Picha
Photography Editor Andrew Brackensick
On-Line Director Nicholas Stiffler
General Manager Judy Riedl
Advertising; Becky Merchant, director. Anne Amador, Lee Yen
Beh, Nikki Harper, Anne Miller, Trina Shanaman, Rose Soli
Production: Michele Ross, manager. Ingrid White, coordinator.
Laura Daniel
Business: Kathy Carbone, supervisor. Judy Connolly, Laura Reeves
Distribution: John Long, David Lee
Classified: Tara Gaultney, manager.
Newsroom.(541) 346-5511
Display Advertising.(541) 346-3712
Business Office.(541) 346-5512
Classified Advertising.(541) 346-4343
EDITORIAL
Seizure of public information was big mistake
The U.S. Forest Service had no
legal right to seize the notes, film
and cameras of two Register
Guard journalists.
The seizure came last weekend as the
journalists were covering protesters’
attempts to block access to a salvage log
ging sale in Warner Creek.
First, the initial arrests of the journal
ists were out of line. According to the
Register Guard, when the reporter and
photographer offered to leave, they were
handcuffed and taken to jail. If Forest
Service officials had ordered them to
leave and they failed to obey that would
have provided a basis for an arrest.
According to the Register-Guard, the
Forest Service gave the media two
options: don’t cover the event, or be
arrested. This borders on prior restraint,
which the Supreme Court ruled uncon
stitutional in 1931. If the media is sup
posed to be the watchdog of the
government, how can the government
seize the very tools necessary to do the
job? It cannot.
In addition, the Oregon Shield Law
prohibits the seizure of a reporter’s notes,
unless law enforcement officials have
“probable cause” to believe the reporter
has committed, is committing or is about
to commit a crime.
The journalists were charged with
criminal trespass. It is not necessary to
seize their film and notebook to prove
this.
The Forest Service’s actions demon
strated a lack of training and thought by
their employees on several levels.
• Their decision was illegal.
• Their decision was unethical. This
action interferes with media’s right to
present an accurate first-hand account of
the event.
• They failed to realize that the Regis
ter-Guard and other media would see the
incident as an attack on their First
Amendment rights and would fight the
seizure.
• They failed to consider that, given
the above, the Register-Guard would give
the incident prominent exposure and
bring unwanted negative publicity to the
Forest Service.
• And finally, seizing the materials
would not stop the newspaper from writ
ing the story.
Obviously, someone at the Forest Ser
vice realized this. Yesterday the materials
were returned to the Register-Guard. Offi
cials said the film was sent to be
processed, but no one looked at it.
The Forest Service broke the law with
its action last weekend. Returning the
notes, film and camera cannot right the
wrong committed.
This editorial represents the opinion of
the Emerald editorial board.