Ms. Sucher, who was a largely volunteer reporter, columnist and associate editor of The News Review from 1959 to 1970, worked at the newspaper again from 1993 to 2004, including two years as editor in chief. In the interim she had been in private practice as a psychotherapist, started writing books and was a leader of the women’s movement in Maryland. In 1978, she became a coordinator in the state for the National Organization for Women.
-- Dorothy Sucher, Reporter in Press-Freedom Case, Dies at 77
Reporter, psychotherapist [on that issue, see this], feminist and mystery writer. Some lady. She was also involved in a lesser known libel case that early on helped set the limits of targeting the press for controversial reporting of public affairs. It involved a small local paper reporting on a controversial land deal:
The petitioners are the publishers of a small weekly newspaper, the Greenbelt News Review, in the city of Greenbelt, Maryland. The respondent Bresler is a prominent local real estate developer and builder in Greenbelt, and was, during the period in question, a member of the Maryland House of Delegates from a neighboring district. In the autumn of 1965 Bresler was engaged in negotiations with the Greenbelt City Council to obtain certain zoning variances that would allow the construction of high-density housing on land owned by him. At the same time the city was attempting to acquire another tract of land owned by Bresler for the construction of a new high school. Extensive litigation concerning compensation for the school site seemed imminent, unless there should be an agreement on its price between Bresler and the city authorities, and the concurrent negotiations obviously provided both parties considerable bargaining leverage.
The articles cited allegations of "blackmail," which was taken to be an allegation of criminal conduct that was subject to libel proceedings, particularly because the paper knew or should have known the allegation was false. The paper was sued and lost to the sum of "5,000 in compensatory damages and $12,500 in punitive damages." A relatively small but significant sum for a small publication in the 1960s, putting aside legal costs. The Supreme Court reversed, noting a public official was involved, so a higher standard was in place for First Amendment purposes, and anyways, it was a fair reporting of public proceedings, "blackmail" used in a purely rhetorical sense. Likewise, the article itself made this clear.
The opinion was unanimous, though Justice White concurred on narrower grounds (Douglas/Black on broader ones), providing a clear-cut reaffirmation of basic First Amendment values. It might be an easier case given all the particulars, the public hearing and all especially, but it still sets forth basic values regarding preventing "the infliction of financial liability upon the petitioners for publishing these two news articles would subvert the most fundamental meaning of a free press, protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments."
Along with the rest of her rich life, it is well to remember Dorothy Sucher and those like her for that reason. After all, though she wrote two mysteries and a book on gardening, her attempt to write about her involvement in the case didn't work out, apparently because of lack of interest.