Alleged newspaper thief fined

All newspapers -- even free ones -- are protected by the Constitution. That was the message sent last week by a San Francisco jury when it found that three police officers had committed civil rights violations by confiscating 2,000 copies of a free local newspaper. Former San Francisco Police Chief Richard Hongisto, who was fired by the city one week after the papers were taken, allegedly ordered officers to sideline an issue of The Bay Times in which he was depicted. The newspaper showed him holding a nightstick between his legs with the caption "Dick's new toy -- martial law." The Bay Times, a free weekly newspaper, was awarded $5,600 in damages and its publisher/editor, Kim Corsaro, was awarded $30,000 for emotional distress Friday. Both decisions, as well as legal costs, are to be paid by the City of San Francisco. According to Corsaro, though, the case "wasn't about money", but rather was about protecting the Constitutional rights of free publications. "I'm incredibly happy [about the verdict]," Corsaro said. "It's established free newspapers as equally protected under the First Amendment." Corsaro added that she had the opportunity early in the case to settle out of court for $90,000, but decided to press for a decision instead. The case comes after a rash of newspaper heists in the past few years around college campuses, including the confiscation of 14,000 copies of The Daily Pennsylvanian in April 1993. A similar incident at the University of Maryland sparked that state to enact a law making the confiscation of free newspapers illegal. But the San Francisco verdict is one of the first court cases in which the theft of a free newspaper was actually grounds for damages. "I think it's wonderful," University of Maryland Diamondback Editor Patty Logue said of the decision. "People are finally realizing that stealing?a newspaper is a crime." Bill Turner, The Bay Times' lawyer, was quick to point out that newspaper theft by police violates the Constitution. But, he said, the same act is not punishable as a civil rights violation when it is committed by a non-government employee. Still, Turner believes the case will set a precedent for future rulings. "Everybody's tickled that there was a verdict of violations of the First and Fourth Amendments," he said. "That ought to go a long way toward correcting the misconception that there's nothing wrong with taking free newspapers." According to Corsaro, The Bay Times fought its courtroom battle in part because of the plight of free college papers. "You are the reason," she said of newspapers like The DP and The Diamondback, "that we pursued this case." Rochester Campus Times Editor-In-Chief Rachel Dickler said she is skeptical that the ruling will set a precedent, especially after the theft of her paper last year. "We're a private university, which means all sorts of things don't apply to us as far as freedom of speech goes," she said. But Dickler said she is heartened by the decision in favor of The Bay Times. "Congratulations to them," she said. "I hope that it comes to be recognized as a crime to steal papers just as it is a crime to steal any other property. "They may be free circulation, but they are not free to print, not free to advertise in, and not free to be stolen." Mark Goodman, director of the Student Press Law Center in Washington, D.C., said the verdict has the potential to benefit all free papers. "Most college newspapers don't want to prolong the battle," he said of campus paper thefts. "They just want to get past it and get some sort of a pledge that it won't happen again. [This case] sends a message, if nothing else, that the confiscation of free newspapers is wrong."