Editorial: Speak out in support of Lynne Stewart

Lynne Stewart's conviction Thursday was not about justice. It was about punishing a lawyer, squashing freedom of speech and silencing dissent.

Saturday, The New York Times ran an article entitled "Regretting the Bravado, a Convicted Lawyer Examines Her Options." The headline gives the impression that Stewart invited this action from the government. That's not what the article is referring to. (It's referring to comments secretly recorded that were played the jury during her trial -- one example, referring to prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald as "a crusader.")

The Times has yet to weigh in with an editorial which is rather strange because they've certainly made noises in support of free speech in recent months as their own Judith Miller faces contempt of court charges. Strange too, since Fitzgerald is the one heading the investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame, the investigation Miller won't reveal information to.

We long ago suggested that instead of attempting to market Judith Miller as "Sweet Judy Blue Eyes" (with a nod to CSN's "Suite Judy Blue Eyes"), TNYT gets off their ass and get their reporters digging into who passed on the information about Valerie Plame to Robert Novak, which people in the administration were behind this crime. (It was a crime for the government representatives who revealed it. A strict reading of the law does not suggest it was a crime for Novak to out Plame.)

Instead the editorial board and the publisher have engaged in constant hand wringing. So it's a little strange to see them fall silent with regard to the Lynne Stewart verdict.

Stewart is facing a lengthy prison sentence for . . . sending out a press release. And the government raised no objections when that happened. Stewart continued to visit her client (as she should have). But now she faces prison and this ain't justice, people.

The Times needs to get off their asses and weigh in because, as Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, has pointed out, we will pay attention. We will all pay attention to who speaks out and who remains silent.

So far (as of Sunday) TNYT has remained silent. Cowardice from the paper of record is not surprising. Cowardice on the issue of free speech is, however, disheartening.

We will note that paper has covered the story. The Washington Post filed a conviction sotry on "radical" Lynne Stewart and then moved on. (Those stories about "College Dorm Rooms Go Unplugged" won't write themselves! Though they read like they do.)

But for all it's many faults, if TNYT has stood out on any issue, it's been free speech. No, they haven't been their to weigh in on every case or incident. Yes, they pick and choose. But the case of Lynne Stewart is one in which she's convicted of a press release. This falls squarely within the area they have carved out for themselves over the years. Their silence on this issue is shameful.

We support Lynne Stewart and we are thankful that there are Lynne Stewarts in our country. Coming of age with The Practice on TV, we suffer no illusions of public defenders or prosecutors.
We do appreciate the need for public defenders to take on the cases that no one else will. For those unable or unwilling to get behind Lynne Stewart personally, they should be able to get behind the issues involved because this isn't about Lynne Stewart. This is about an attack on free speech rights and attack on defense lawyers. Coming on the heels of the Bully Boy's first four years with non-stop attacks on the judiciary, this is part of a long line of bullying.

That said, we support Lynne Stewart personally. We are outraged at the attack on freedom of speech. But we also feel very sorry, on a personal level, that this sixty-five-year-old woman is facing a lengthy prison sentence. We admire the bravery and determination she's long shown, her repeated decisions to take on cases that no one else would. As we said before, we are very thankful for the Lynne Stewarts in our country: they make us a better nation.

Information on Lynne Stewart's case can be found at her website. You can also find out about her plans to appeal, make donations and find additional information.

Thirty or forty years from now, when your grandkids look you in the eye and ask why people didn't do anything to help Stewart, you better plan to do more than shrug your shoulders. You better have something to tell them that reinforces the need for activism. It can be, "I spoke out." It can be, "I wrote a letter to the judge." (There's information for that at her site.) It can be, "I wrote a letter to the editor." It can be, "I donated to her appeal." It can be any number of things. But if your response is a shrug, what example will you have you sent?

Because history will not judge this conviction favorably. This is a stain on our country, this is an attack on freedom. If you believe in what this country is supposed to stand for, you better be doing something regarding this issue.