On privacy, public events, and the proper use of authority by public officials
By James P. Gannon
Now that the community memorial service has been held the way that the Hilscher family wanted it, it seems the right time to reflect a bit on what the controversy over Robert Chappell’s ban on the press was about–and what it was not about.
The argument over the Superintentent of Schools’ edict that the press would be banned from the “community celebration of the life of Emily Hilscher” was never about the right of the Hilscher family to have the kind of memorial service for their daughter that they wanted.
Like any family mourning a lost loved one, they had an absolute right to hold a private service if they wished. They had every right to invite anyone they wanted, or to keep out anyone they didn’t want. They had a right to hold no service at all, or to confine it to family, or just to friends, or to close that event to news reporters, or to left-handed people, for that matter.
A private event is just that–private–and the host decides who gets in. If held at a church, on a private property, or in a private club, there would be no issue involving public access to the event.
But an event ceases to be a private event when it is held at a public place, in a public building or on public grounds, such as a public school, a court house, or a public park. Further, all meaningful traces of “privacy” are removed when the public school serves as host for the event, and when a public servant, paid for by the taxpayers–such as a county superintendent of schools–becomes the person in charge of the event, the one who announces it to the public and who issues rules and regulations regarding the event.
When Chappell announced this event last Wednesday morning, he characterized it as a “community memorial service.” Then he added this statement: “The family has asked that we announce that this service will be CLOSED TO THE PRESS.” (Emphasis in the original.) When he wrote that, it’s unfortunate that Chappell did not reflect upon what he was saying for a moment.
A certain class of citizens were being told that they, and only they, would be excluded from this “community” event in a public place, held under supervision of public officials. This class of citizens report on public events, on community events, and has every bit as much right in a public building or at a public event as any other kind of citizen.
A county level bureaucrat has no authority to suspend the Constitutional rights of anyone, whether that person works as a journalist or not. A family’s wishes, no matter how much we might wish to honor them in a time of unimaginable distress, cannot override these rights. A public official does not have authority to temporarily suspend rights because they happen to be inconvenient in a certain set of circumstances.
Rights that can be suspended under certain circumstances–those circumstances to be determined by the public official involved–are no rights at all. They are subject to whim and to arbitrary decision making. Rights are either absolute, or they are negotiable. The rights in the Constitution–freedom to assemble, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, equal protection of the laws, etc.–are absolute. They are not subject to temporary suspension by a county superintendent of schools.
But it got worse. At 2:31 p.m. Wednesday, the Superintendent of schools took it upon himself to issue a second warning. Breathtakingly heavy-handed and insulting in tone, Chappell issued this message: “NOTICE; THE FAMILY HAS ASKED THAT THE PRESS NOT ATTEND THIS SERVICE. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WILL BE ON THE SCENE TO ENFORCE THE FAMILY’S REQUEST.”
Chlling in tone and threatening in effect, this had all the subtle charm of a Gestapo directive. It conjured up visions of armed sheriff’s deputies strong-arming some hapless journalist off the premises, or grabbing his notebook and camera. It reeked of the over-reach of authority.
Take this out of the context of the rights of the press. Suppose a family requested that a community event in a public place be open to everyone, but not to black people. (Not so many years ago, this was precisely the issue in the South, including Virginia) Can you imagine the Superintendent of Schools sending out a public message that said: “A community memorial service will be held at the high school, but the family has asked that we announce the event is CLOSED TO BLACK PEOPLE.”
It is unthinkable that any official would have sent out such a message. Yet what is different here except the target group?
I don’t think Chappell or any public official would have even contemplated, for a fleeting moment, passing on a family request to ban black citizens, or gay people, or Catholics. But that same sensitivity to rights was not present when Chappell issued his ban on journalists.
This tells me something that I find extremely depressing. I am fully aware of the dim view that much of the public takes of the media. The press pack can be an ugly thing, and the behavior of the media horde covering high-profile events can be disturbing. But disturbing behavior can be controlled, and reasonable limits can be placed on press access at public events, and the conditions of the coverage. The press can be confined to a certain area, limits can be placed on numbers involved, or on use of cameras or electronic equipment. The horde can be tamed, if necessary. But an outright ban on the presence of journalists is so over-reaching that it boggles the mind.
What’s depressing is that an official such as a superintendent of schools appeared to have no appreciation of the rights involved or the proper way to try to comply with the family’s legitimate wish for dignity and decorum. (Frankly, in 40-plus years of the practice of journalism, I don’t know a journalist who would not try to comply with the family’s wishes; most would bend over backwards not to be disruptive at such a solumn event.)
Moreover, judging from the message traffic on the county’s e-mail bulletin board, few of those who commented on the controversy triggered by the protest of attorney David Konick seemed to have any better appreciation of the rights involved than did Chappell. Most disparaged the media and applauded the family for wanting them kept out. One woman applauded Chappell’s threat of using law officers to enforce the ban, stating she would come to the event with her cast-iron frying pan to help out the cops.
To the frying pan lady, I say: Next time, it might be your rights that are being trampled.
There’s a footnote that needs addressing here: Following the issuance of Chappell’s press ban, I made a call, and sent an e-mail, to the Commonwealth’s Attorney for Rappahannock County, raising the issue of press rights, and asking by what authority could a county official suspend my rights.
Not long after (whether connected to my query or not, I do not know), I received calls from a county official and from a clergyman assuring me that I, personally, wasn’t being banned from the event, and that I should feel welcome to attend. But I noted that there were no exceptions stated to the announced press ban, and that there was a principle involved here that was important–not simply a matter of personal consideration.
I did not attend. I could have attended, simply to make a point about my rights to be there, but I would have felt like the leper at a funeral. No thanks. I stated publicly, when I began writing about the tragedy of Emily Hilscher, that I had no intention of intruding on the family of the young woman, and that I had no stomach for that kind of pack journalism. The family deserves its peace, and time to seek healing and recovery from such pain and grief.
What remains, like a bad taste in the mouth, is that this divisive issue need not have arisen at all, and that an ugly disregard for rights has been exposed, and a very bad lesson served up to a public that doesn’t seem to understand what’s at sake here. It’s not just my rights that have been declared negotiable here. If this kind of thinking prevails, your rights are no more certain, either.
-- James P. GannonComments
Comment from nolp
Time: April 23, 2007, 7:51 am
Rights are such slippery things - I love mine, but yours? Well, I don’t think they are so good. So … I’ll just ignore them, over-ride them, be threatening so you will back down.
But what about the next time when the shoe is on the other foot?
I agree with Jim.
Nol Putnam
Comment from George Sonnett
Time: April 23, 2007, 10:41 am
I support the spirit of Dr. Chappell’s actions. The residents of the county desperately needed a community venue to celebrate Emily’s life, to support her family, and to mourn together. The high school was the natural focal point, and probably the only facility in the county, public or private, that could have safely accommodated the enormous turnout. Konick was either grandstanding or looking for a client. The press had ample time to seek redress in the courts after the “edict” and prior to the service if it felt the need to assert itself, or, as at least one member did, the press could just show up anyway. Since when is the press made up of shrinking violets.
Thank you Dr. Chappell for making the memorial service possible.
Emily, you are way cooler than the rest of us.
Comment from Eric Hilscher
Time: April 23, 2007, 11:45 am
Mr. James P. Gannon:
Please excuse my style as I am a construction contractor and not a writer of words. Nor am I a lawyer. But I wish to shed some light on some of the statements you raise in your article “on privacy, public events, and the proper use of authority by public officials”.
We will be holding a private ceremony for our daughter Emily. It was always our intention to do so. Though we try to be good citizens and active in supporting the efforts of our community and our country, we are not “spotlight” kind of people. We prefer to be just one of the crowd. “Trying to get by being quiet and shy” as a line goes in a great song by a person who has seen a lot of life.
Friends requested a community celebration of Emily’s life reminding us that the community had suffered a loss as well and asked that we please reconsider and arrange one. We tried to keep it very simple. Emily would like it that way. She would not want a circus.
We asked that the news media not be allowed to make a circus of this community event. Mr. Chappell and others did what they felt was the best thing they could do to try and honor our wishes. Perhaps the wording was a bit heavy. However, I thank them. And I thank the many volunteers – not paid by taxpayers’ money – that assisted in the preparations. It is a shame that people get condemned for doing what they truly believe is the right thing…yet others seem to have “rights” that allow them to do hateful things.
I do not meet many press people. My wife is an ardent news junkie and even considered journalism as a career having been editor on numerous high school papers. I believe you know Elizabeth. However, I am not a mushroom in a cave somewhere. I have seen how the media as a group handles many news events. I am sure most individual journalists are nice people. I think, though, that when in a pack, things tend to change as with so many others in nature. As to you not knowing a journalist who would not try to comply with our wishes, perhaps I should have kept the name and number of the journalist who awakened us at 1:30 in the morning two days after my daughter’s death and, after identifying himself, opened his conversation with “I am so sorry to disturb you, but…” Now, do you really think he was so sorry to have called me?
It is a shame that you did not attend as Mr. James P. Gannon, a valued member of our community. The event was a wonderful and simple tribute to a beautiful young woman who had so many friends. I find it interesting that you felt you could only attend as a journalist. None of my construction friends came with their tool belts on.
As an aside, we never meant to exclude our local media. When we were asked about excluding ALL media by our clergyman, we indicated that our local community news media were welcome because, as locals, we felt they could be sensitive to the needs of our community, and would he please get that word to the right people. Elizabeth holds you in very high regard. I am sorry you seem to think you were called for some other reason.
Comment from Franklin Jones
Time: April 23, 2007, 2:22 pm
Not that he needs anyone to stick up for him, but here is Dr Chappell’s response to the whole situation. This was sent out by Dr Chappell via Rappnet on Thursday April 19 just before 11am.
“Dear Members of the Rappahannock Community:
I have learned that questions are being raised on Rappnet about the Memorial Service at RCHS on Saturday. Here are some pertinent FACTS 4U:
-RCHS is hosting the service as a result of a written “Facilities Use” request filed with my office by the family’s Pastor. RCHS is NOT SPONSORING this event. We are honored to be the host site for this important event.
-The RCPS has NOT engaged the services of law enforcement for Saturday’s event. I simply passed that information on at the request of the family’s Pastor.
Although I didn’t request the presence of law enforcement for Saturday, if a bill is being presented to the Pastor or the family I’ll gladly make a personal contribution to help cover the costs.
Sincerely,
Bob Chappell, Supt.”
There are many events held at the public school facilities throughout the year that are done so through “Facility Use” requests that are legally *closed to the public*. This is nothing new.
If you, or any other members of the media, had shown up with camera and notebook in hand, I would like to think that the frying-pan-wielder would have socked it to you. It would have been well deserved.
Comment from Eric Hilscher
Time: April 23, 2007, 8:32 pm
Mr. Gannon:
I have read the four posts I see as of this evening, one of which is my own. As I said, I am not a writer of words, so I would like to clarify one thing.
Elizabeth and I were very adamant with the numerous county officials we have been in contact with since the beginning of this that we in no way wished to have any contact with any news media at any time.
Also, I appreciate your respect of that wish.
Comment from farmfem
Time: April 24, 2007, 11:13 am
Dear Mr. Hilscher,
You may not think of yourself as a writer of words, but I found your post to be absolutely eloquent and I thank you for your generosity in sharing it with us. No one, no matter how empathetic, can ever understand the magnitude of your loss. Except the families of the other victims. From everything I have heard and read, you and your wife raised a delightful and exceptional young woman and everyone is saddened by her passing, even those of us who never had the opportunity to meet your beautiful daughter.
On the media, you are right. As a former newsmagazine photographer I have seen it. I have done it. Early in my career, insecure about bucking my bosses’ wishes, I intruded. And I felt unclean as a result of having done so. Thereafter I refused such assignments. Many journalists, perhaps most good journalists, share those sensibilities. But there will always be those who will go after the story no matter what and they shame us all.
I had attempted to suggest, through people i thought might have contact with your family, that one way to tame the media beast was to select one local representative to cover the memorial and make it available. I doubt that suggestion reached you, but I was interested to find that the man I would have suggested, Richard Lykes, managed to get permission on his own. I have not yet seen his story and pictures in the Rappahannock News, but knowing the gentleman he is I am sure your will find his coverage tasteful and sensitive.
Cynthia Johnson
Comment from Prosemo
Time: April 25, 2007, 1:41 pm
Dear Mr. Gannon, Mr. Hilscher and the Rappahannock community.
“I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it to my death” must be the motto that American citizens hold dear when looking at the first amendment, as it stands. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly are far more important than the need for privacy. I think Dr. Chappell was well meaning in his defense of the Hilscher family’s right to privacy. I think his intent was to focus upon the celebration of Emily Hilscher’s life, without a deflection of that focus by the bright lights, cameras and notepads of the press. But, the right to privacy is trumped when placed upon public property.
Maybe if Dr. Chappell had charged the Hilscher’s $1 for the rent of school property (and then donated the cash from his own or others’ wallets), then the family would have had the right to keep press, protesters (I can’t imagine this), and any person they wished from their service. But, in the grief of those arranging it, constitutional law may have seemed insignificant or was overlooked.
Last fall I attended to a family I was close to who had just been informed of a fallen Marine. Without exception, they invited everyone who they knew to the funeral, the burial and into their home for over a week to grieve and share with them. I scratched my head and thought, “I would want extreme privacy to grieve in this way; no friends, enemies, press - not even family members.” Personally, I’d prefer to be a hermit than publicly share my grief. But, if I choose to grieve on public grounds, I’d have no choice but to attract unwarranted attention.
The Hilscher’s have been very generous in sharing their grief and the service with the community. This is beyond commendation in love, care and kindness. I’m sure it was mis-handled by Dr. Chappell and others because they too were understandably in shock over the tragedies of April 16th. I pray in the future, the local press will be seen as part of this community, and the national and global press will be seen as citizens protected by our constitution, just as are the rest of us.
Philip S. Rosemond,
Flint Hill, VA.
Comment from wonka13
Time: April 27, 2007, 12:47 am
We all knew where we were when the story of the Virginia Tech rampage became the only topic of every media outlet. Because it was Virginia those of us who have called it home took it personal. For many of us with children graduated from Virginia schools the pain and sadness were very near. As the details evolved we learned that a family from our rural community suffered a loss…..perhaps the very first victim of what was transforming into an international story.
The American culture we are living through is polarized and uneasy. Violence, war, extreme partisanship…have caused most of us to look for the hope of a better day. Unfortunately that quest is interrupted, frustrated and seems often unattainable. A madman in Blacksburg set us back again.
It has been the response to the tragedy that has put us back on course to a better place. I find that “the press” have often been scapegoats caught up in this process. Reporters of fact have often been vilified when their words fall harshly on ears of the powerful. Stereotyping all media as intrusive and rude will lead us in a direction that we may regret. I understand the pressures on public officials in the glare of huge breaking stories. I retired from one of those jobs.
In this case I can only give a purely personal reaction…..I couldn’t attend the public recognition. I would have liked to have read how this beautiful young person was honored. I know Jim Gannon’s reporting among others would have eloquently magnified and offered up feelings and emotion of this community gathering for readers near and far.
I am sincerely appreciative of the comments made here by Mr. Hilscher. God Bless you and your family.
Bill Earle
Hume, VA
Comment from cma301
Time: April 27, 2007, 12:58 pm
I am disgusted by this posting. Mr. Gannon, I don’t feel that this was or should be about you or your rights; this was about the loss of a young woman that was taken away from the people that loved her way too soon. The ceremony was to help in the grieving process for her family and friends, not a time for outsiders to gawk. I have three children that went to school with Emily. My son and step-daughter graduated from high school with her last year. They all knew her and liked her. Perhaps you are correct that the family could have held the ceremony in private but they were kind enough to allow the community to participate. I think this was especially important to our younger people who lost a friend so close to their own age. I’m all for constitutional rights but sometimes it more important just to be a kind human being! I think Mr. Hilscher was very generous in his posting to say that you would have been welcome as a member of the community. I’m afraid that if I were in his shoes and had read your article I would not have been so kind.
To the Hilschers - I am deeply sorry for your loss. You have been and remain in our prayers.
–Christine Arnold
Comment from Pat Snyder
Time: May 1, 2007, 5:33 pm
Mr. Gannon:
I wish that every member of my profession (lawyer) acted responsibly and with integrity and respect. Sadly, they do not. In fact, this entire issue was raised by a member of my profession who failed to give Dr. Chappell the kindness of an opportunity to rectify his mistake before making a big issue in public.
Your profession also has people who act irresponsibly and disrespectfully. What could a reporter possibly have been thinking to call Mr. Hilscher at 130 am, 2 days after his daughter was murdered? That call was irresponsible, disrespectful, and unkind.
With the freedom of the press comes responsibility. Mr. and Mrs. Hilscher had already seen irresponsible press conduct and understandably did not want to risk further pain.
I am the frying-pan lady, and I would keep that pan available if necessary to protect your rights. However, your right of access as a reporter to the memorial service was not unqualified. The County is permitted to impose reasonable “time, place and manner” rules if necessary to achieve governmental objectives. We do not know what would have happened had Dr. Chappell’s edict been challenged; I have every confidence that, under Mr. McCarthy’s steady leadership, the County would have fashioned an enforceable rule on access, had Dr. Chappell erred.
My half-joking suggestion of protecting the family with a frying pan was not made in the context of “helping” the police. The Rapp. County police are professionals who do not need my help. Instead, my suggestion on Rappnet was made when legitimate concerns were raised about whether county police could enforce Dr. Chappell’s edict. If you will recall, I later suggested that the women of the community line up shoulder to shoulder to protect the family from irresponsible conduct by the press.
Your analogy to a rule prohibiting blacks is misplaced. The county is allowed to impose reasonable time, place and manner rules on press access. It is not allowed to prohibit blacks. Period. Such a rule would violate the rights of US citizens, and would be unenforceable.
I enjoy reading your work. I thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Pat Snyder
Comment from Jim Warwick
Time: May 2, 2007, 4:53 pm
I think that the families’ wishes were to NOT have a “Media Circus” descend on their daughter’s Community Memorial Service.
In my opinion, the fear of a “Media Circus” was the fear of Satellite News Trucks arriving and thinking that they should get in the middle of the event.
And, please do not critique a families’ behavior at a time as this. It is what they feel is appropriate, not anyone’s ideas about that which matters. I think that they did exactly the right thing in this circumstance.
Mr. Hilscher, you have expesssed your thoughts very well.
Jim Warwick
Comment from Jenks Hobson
Time: May 6, 2007, 9:17 pm
This may come a bit late, as I have been out of town most of the time since Emily’s memorial service, but somethings need to be said. Dr. Chappell seems to be getting a lot of grief that he does not deserve. He was not incharge of the event and he did not ban anything. He made a general announcement about the press at my request, which came directly from the family. I have great respect for many folks in the press and a strong sense of the essential nature of a free press for a free country. I also have had personal experience with the feeding frenzy that some press can get into without any smattering of regard for the folks involved. That level of press was very much present here in Rappahannock with reporters literally coming from all over the world and trying all manner of ruses to get to the Hilscher family. We were not trying to trample anyone’s constitutional rights, but we were trying to avoid a media circus. It was very clear that the local press were welcome as press and I personally made sure that they knew. I am also aware that other press folks simply came as part of the crowd, which was fine. It was the sense of intrusion that was avoided sucessfully. While the schools are public property, this was a duly requested non school event and should be treated as such.
Rev. Jennings Hobson
Write a comment