A Sensible and Necessary Ruling

It is in only extremely serious and rare instances that the press should be restrained by the government from pursuing or publishing a story. San Diego Sheriff John Duffy, who successfully obtained just such an order last week directing the Los Angles Times not to publish information about security devices at his home, seems not to understand, or at least not excessively welcome, the principle of the First Amendment. This is a worrisome deficiency in any public official but all the more so for a high official of the law.

Superior Court Judge Jeffrey T. Miller, who issued the initial preliminary restraining order last week, lifted it Wednesday after hearing arguments from The Times. We think he reached the proper conclusion, but it is not The Times or other newspapers that benefit from such judicial rulings that reaffirm basic freedom of the press but the readers of those newspapers.

Though scarcely a week old, this case went on longer and farther than it should have. The Times had no intention of publishing information that would jeopardize the safety of the sheriff and his family; its aim was to determine the extent to which taxpayers had footed the bill for any security devices at Duffy’s home.

This is normal and proper newspaper business. After Miller’s Wednesday ruling, the San Diego Sheriff said he was “appalled.” But Miller had ruled as would any judge. The nature of the First Amendment is such that prior restraint of the press is not something that should be lightly and frequently permitted.