Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 12:22 AM

Yeah, Doug, thanks for that. My friend has a BA in Art History, then had to complete 2 or 3 years in legal studies before she was an offical paralegal.

She could and did do damn near everything her lawyer did and, when he decided to take a 3 week vacation with no cell phone, she did a bit more. Everyone knew she was doing ALL of his work, except what he actually had to do in court and even then she was feeding him his lines. And, for that, because of some misguided agreement in an assoc. of paralegals and because the great state of Wyoming is a right to work state, she got paid less than $24,000 per year, while he took home hundred of thousands and only had a couple of years more schooling over her, along with doing a third of the work she did.

Not ALL lawyers are that way, but I am very grateful she is no longer working for him.

kat

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: DougR
Date: 01 Oct 01 - 10:46 PM

I believe a paralegal is one who has completed certain courses in the law and does mostly research for lawyers, but are not licensed to practice law.

DougR

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Oct 01 - 01:39 PM

LOL, Ian, no darlin' they are not an emergency lawyer. They go through several years of college, if they are any good, not one of those study courses, usually already have a degree, and are trained to do just about everything a lawyer can do, just some things they are not allowed to do, by law.

There is some similarity to a paramedic, though. A paramedic can do a lot of the emergency procedures a doc can do and does go through extensive training. An emergency medical technician, by contrast, does not have as much advanced training as a paramedic and cannot perform as many procedures as such. If I remember correctly a nurse practioner has more training and legal backing, above what a paramedic does, for even more treatment.

Clear as mud?**BG** Take two aspirin and ask me again, tomorrow.

kat

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: Cappuccino
Date: 01 Oct 01 - 01:23 PM

Kat, my dear, please help with a problem in Anglo-American translation. What the hell is a 'paralegal'?

If a paramedic is someone who goes charging in at a medical emergency, is a paralegal an on-call lawyer that litigation-loving Americans can call on any hour of day or night?

- IanB

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Oct 01 - 12:42 PM

Yes, DougR, it was a bit of fun--those are the hours that court tends to be in session, and that we, the litigants, must be on hand. The lawyers and their staff tend work a few minutes either side of that, though, in my experience, seldom past 9:30 or 10:00 in the evening( 11:00 only once or twice a week, three times at the outside), and I have seldom heard from them before, say, 7:30 in the morning, unless, of course, they were scheduled to be in court on that day--

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Sep 01 - 08:35 PM

Alice, I thought of you when I also received this from a candidate in the NWU elections. He was speakign of efforts he supports:

"...activists from the Boston local have organized the Boston Globe Freelancers Association, in coalition with freelance photographers and illustrators, to reject an onerous new contract at that paper."

It is good to see freelancers of all kinds join together.

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: Alice
Date: 30 Sep 01 - 07:13 PM

Freelance illustrators and photographers followed the Tasini case closely, too, because as freelance independent contractors, the rights to our work were in jeopardy just as they were for writers. There was a huge sigh of relief when the writers won their case against the New York Times, then on the 25th, the memo became public. (It was posted on the Illustrators' Forum on the 25th.) The memo is truly from the NY Times, and unfortunately is not a suprise, given their track record in dealing with the freelance creatives whose work they want, which brought on the Tasini lawsuit to begin with.

Alice

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: DougR
Date: 30 Sep 01 - 06:40 PM

Thanks, kat, for posting that story. Seems to me all might not be lost, but I'm not attorney

DougR

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Sep 01 - 04:50 PM

This is being picked up by more media, now: Article at INSIDE

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 11:49 PM

And I'll join you in blaming others for my cynicism, too, although not specifically those nor in that order.**BG**

I can say that all of the writers named in the memo were those who were named in the succesful lawsuit. As to whether it is a set-up, I think with the kind of high mucky-mucks the union has on its board, plus the backing of the UAW, the NYT would be playing a very dangerous game in doing so.

This is a very interesting discussion and I would like to thank all of you.

kat

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: Skeptic
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 10:02 PM

ttoadfrog,

Thanks. I couldn't remember what they were called. I think they are still allowed here in Florida. It seems to me at a few years ago some of the activists in the State filed charges of frivolous suit with the State Bar Association. If upheld, the charge can result in disbarment but I don't think we've got an anti-SLAPP law yet. We're still working on how to count ballots and deal with a just announced 7% budget shortfall (which I hope doesn't mess up any of the funding for folk festivals).

Kat,

I hope so too. My question wasn't whether the source the Union got it from was reliable but whether the source was him/herself set up to pass a fake memo? If it was a plant, the best that could happen is the loss of the election. Worst case is a nasty law suit from the NYT that could hurt or cripple the Union.

Not that the NYT would ever do anything as cynical or underhanded as setting up a Union that supported a lawsuit they lost, of course. I blame my cynicism on Nixon, Capt. Kangaroo and, of course, troll.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: toadfrog
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 09:00 PM

By the way, Skeptic, the "nuisance lawsuits" you refer to (if they are intended to curtain speech, and not more questionable forms of "activism") are not legal, not in California, anyway. They are called SLAPP suits, and in California they are subject to summary dismissal unless the plaintiff can show at the outset they have merit. And if they are dismissed, the plaintiff can be made to pay defendant's attorney fees. That's established by statute; probably some other states have similar rules

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: toadfrog
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 08:53 PM

If the message (1) is genuine; and (2) mentions only people that participated in the lawsuit, I think that is pretty good prima facie evidence that the idea is retaliation. There is no other apparent reason to refuse to deal with the free-lancers. Whether it is legal depends on what the law of New York says. In the State of California, all employment contracts are presumed to be at-will, so that absent an agreement to the contrary, any employee can be terminated at any time, for any reason. But there is an exception when the employee is terminated for a reason "contravening public policy," e.g. for being a minority or for reporting illegal conduct to a superior or to legal authorities.

So if this happened in California, and the free-lancers filed a second lawsuit, it would raise two novel issues:

(1) Does it contravene public policy to retaliate against people for exercising their constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances? (I suspect it does), and

(2) Can the rule against terminating employees in contravention of policy be extended to independant contractors, like freelance journalists (this is dicier)? New York law is generally a bit more conservative than California law, but generally similar principles tend to apply.

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 08:15 PM

Boy, I sure hope it was verified first, John! It went out, by email, to all members of the NWU, from the president, so it'd better be legit or he could definitely lose the election!:-)

Subject: RE: National I.D. Card
From: Skeptic
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 08:05 PM

I doubt it is illegal. It seems like it is in the same vein as those who file nuisance lawsuits against the activists to tie up their resources so they can't fight the real problem. An dto send a clear message to other who might think of filing in the future.

I would question just how "accidental" the leak was as the implied message is that if you actively support the point of view of those on the list, you too, can find yourself on a list. Hopefully it was verified before it was distributed?

And to link it to music

As some day it may happen that a victim must be found, I?ve got a little list--I?ve got a little list The Mikado

Regards

John

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: DougR
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 07:18 PM

My daughter works for a lawyer, and I can assure you they don't work the hours you suggest, M.Ted. I realize you were probably funning us anyway.

If it could be proven that the Times black-listed these writers BECAUSE they filed and won a law suit, perhps there would be ample evidence to file another suit. One of the lawyers on board the Mudcat could probably advise us.

I think companies have become so gun-shy of being sued they do rely on their attornies to advise them how to stay out of court room.

Seems to me they are exposed because of the leak of the internal memo. How about it Larry?

DougR

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 04:55 PM

Isn't it some kind of contempt of court?

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 04:54 PM

thought those were bankers' hours, M. Ted?**BG**

Much as I do not like this instance of "lawyering" we've been discussing, I feel the need to point out that we have lawyers on this Forum and it is not fair to them to paint all with a broad brush.

My best friend used to work as a paralegal and I can tell you, from experience, those were neither her hours, nor her lawyer's. They only get paid on "billable" hours, so the more they actually put in and work, the more they make. I know this gets abused, but not always.

Okay, someone else can have the soapbox now. Thanks fer listenin'....kat

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: toadfrog
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 04:49 PM

Technically, the newspaper has the "right" to refuse to deal with whomever they choose. The problem here, is that they are refusing to deal with writers because the writers filed and won a meritorious lawsuit against the N.Y. Times for cheating its writers. So this is an instance of retailation which seems to contravene public policy. Probably it's not illegal - but it should be.

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 04:40 PM

Lawyers are "experts", which means that you can pay them to find legal arguements to justify what you have already decided that you are going to do--and DougR, if lawyers really ran everything, we wouldn't start work til 10AM, we'd break for two hours at noon--start back at 2PM, and be finished and out about 4:00 or 4:30--

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 04:10 PM

If the lawyers run things that's no excuse. The British used to run America didn't they? You didn't put up with that.

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: DougR
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 02:30 PM

McGrath, things might run differently where you are, but over here, the lawyers run things.

Donuel, you didn't say, DougR, but if you were thinking of me, I just wish I were.

DougR

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 01:42 PM

"Our lawyers recommend that the newspaper not engage any of the below named plaintiffs to write for the newspaper."

What's that got to do with anything? Editors might take advice from all kind of people, but they can't hide behind them. Any editor who does that is just a wimp. Which most of them probably are anyway. Regardless of whatever political persuasion wimp that might be.

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 10:42 AM

Then perhaps Doug is a millionaire.

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 05:17 AM

Can't say that I see this one as a freedom-of-the-press issue. Most companies are allowed some choice in who they employ/commission.

Anyway, as someone (H L Mencken?) said: the freedom of the press is the freedom of a tiny handful of millionaires to write whatever crap they like. Or words to that effect.

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 03:07 AM

Yikes, Ian! I wish I was working enough to say the same, but I am sorry to hear of your not being paid. It's my own fault for not marketing myself more. There are actually quite a few freelancers here. Maybe we should start a forum on Jon's annexe and swap tricks of the trade, etc.**BG**

Always nice to meet a fellow writer. it's taken me this long to figure out that is what I am and have been and yeah, I'm too center-aged to want to change now!*bg*

Cheers,

kat

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 03:05 AM

Those bleeding heart liberal employers will do it to you every time--In my years as a wage slave, the best employers were always conservative Republicans, not perhaps always the most exciting folks, but the books were always balanced, and they knew the value of keeping their word--also, they were not given to making vague, but extravagent promises, which somehow or other never came to pass--

My favorite boss was a die hard Reagan supporter, and had helped him from the Governor days--our firm was always well in the black, and several times a year, if profits were good, we got hefty surprise bonuses--

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: Cappuccino
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 02:58 AM

Kat, how interesting to find that we're in the same business. And what a dicey business it is, too - this year alone I have written off as bad debts, over two thousand pounds sterling in unpaid fees from newspapers and magazines.

But I'm too old to get a real job!

- ian B

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 02:17 AM

I guess I am not being very clear these days about my discontent. I am pissed that writers are being blacklisted because they were successful on behalf of all freelancers in winning a legitimate lawsuit against one of the "biggies" in the highest court of our land.

That biggie has not let up in its trying to connive and rip off freelance writers even after the lawsuit was won. This blacklisting is just one of many ploys they have used since and it stinks, IMO.

kat

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: DougR
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 01:08 AM

kat, my dear: if your discontent centers on the fact that you feel the lawyer made the decision rather than the editor, I suspect that your anger is misdirected. The editor, I suspect did make the final decision, but it was based on legal advise provided by the newspaper's legal counsel. I would think in this "sue everybody" mentality that we live in today, most CEOs probably are hesitant to make a move without approval of their lawyers.

DougR

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: M.Ted
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 01:13 AM

For myself, I find it objectionable, because I find the NYT to be, in addition to the above items, hypocritical, backbiting weasels--and Doug, we probably agree on a lot more stuff than you think--

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 12:22 AM

Daviddarlin', as a freelancer, I've always retained all rights to my pieces which have appeared in newspapers, still do for that matter and I've been told it would be illegal for anyone to re-use them without my permission. In fact, a book publisher which used one of them contacted me before the Supreme Court case was done, to ask for and purchase the right to use the same article in a subscription online database. For the book, they had signed a one-time only North American rights agreement.

For more on the original case, please see the Washington Times article, with links. You may also read writers' rights and about the Supreme Court case, including the full text of the case by going to the NWU site and scrolling down on the left, then choosing Tasini VS NYtimes, then follow the links.

Of course there are some pro-writers articles there, but there is also the court data, etc.

I realise the NYTimes has a right to blackball certain writers, but I had thought that decision should belong to an editor, not their lawyer, as has been pointed out. I also think it is something to be publicised, regardless, as it has obviously been done in retaliation for the writers winning the Supreme Court case.

The NWU is in the middle of an election campaign for officers and I know both "sides" are hyping a lot, but this does effect all freelancers, in some way. Don't think for a minute that the big boys don't talk amongst themselves. The blacklisting may not be industry-wide, yet, but these writers stuck their necks out, won, and are now having to pay for it in loss of work. I hope other papers are not too chickenshit to buy their stuff, as long as it is relevant and well-written.

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: DougR
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 12:12 AM

M Ted: I knew at some point we would agree on something! I'm no fan of the New York Times either.

DougR

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: ddw
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 12:02 AM

Thanks for the clarification, Troll. I was aware of that kind of thing on songs, stories, etc., but I'm not sure it holds on newspaper articles. I guess it might depend on the nature of the articles.

I've done a little freelance work for music newspapers, some auto racing copy and for papers I've been working for in other capacities, but nothing I would have any reason to protect. Everything else I've written has been as a staff writer for a newspaper.

All that said, I still don't think any consideration should override a paper's right to use or not use writers, even if it's just because the person has bad breath. Did Picasso sue any of his patrons because they didn't want to buy any more of his work? And if he tried, wouldn't the person have the right to decide to never buy another?

david

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: Troll
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 11:44 PM

ddw, it would depend upon the terms of the sale of the material. Was it an outright sale or sale for a one-time printing with the writers retaining intellectual property rights. If that was the case then they should be paid for any subsequent publishing.
Basically, the paper may have bought one-time-only rights.
I sold recording rights to a song I wrote, one time only with a certain minimum. I retained all rights to the song. when the artist wanted to do a second run, we re-negotiated the contract.
He had bought the right to record the song one time only.
Thats why you should alwayshave a lawyer when dealing with contracts. they can be tricky.

troll

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: ddw
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 11:19 PM

M.Ted —— I was about to repeat a post from the original thread, but Troll said basically the same thing very eloquently. I would just add that there is NO parallel between government trying to suppress news (they try, but rarely succeed in my experience) and a paper refusing to run a particular writer's work.

And, as I said in the other thread, my writing and photos were pirated about 28 years ago by a fundamentalist preacher who warped what I had written for this own purposes and produced a book out of it. When I asked about suing him I was told that once my articles appeared in a newspaper, they were in the public domain.

Use of the articles is what seems to be the issue here. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it that the Times ran some stories, then posted them on the Net and the authors wanted to be paid again? If that is what happened, I can't understand how the court found in favor of the writers. Maybe if I read the decision I could figure it out, but it would take some pretty contorted logic, IMO.

Kat — sorry love, but I think this cause is out to lunch. It's the kind of thing that could get somebody stirred up emotionally, but it just doesn't stand up to analysis because the bottom line is that any company can buy or not buy any product they choose — including a writer's work.

cheers all,

david

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 10:56 PM

You make a good point, Troll--I like to look for any opportunity to expose the NYT as petty, biased, and arrogant though--

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: Troll
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 07:39 PM

As I see it, the paper, a private business, has the right to hire whoever it chooses. Unless they circulate the list throughout the industry in an attempt to get all newspapers to refuse to hire these writers, in which case they would be conducting a public vendetta.
I see no indication that such is the case thus far.
If the paper were refusing advertising dollars from, say, some major polluter or gun manufacturer, I have no doubt that some members of the National Writers Union would applaud the decision.
Why should the paper have the right to refuse an ad but not the right to refuse to hire a writer?
I repeat, as long as the list is not being sent out industry-wide, it can hardly be compared to the blacklists of the McCarthy era.
While I am not personally in favor of such lists, I recognize the companys right to promulgate one internally.

troll

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: DougR
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 07:17 PM

As I understand it though, McGrath, the lawyers represent the newspaper and it is privately owned. I suppose they reserve the right to print anyone's writing that they choose, and I would wonder if there is anything the writers can do about it. I guess we'll see, won't we?

DougR

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: DougR
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 07:12 PM

Ah, MTed, that's ancient history. What you reported is news to me though. Having lived through the Watergate mess and having two friends who were sort of involved (one who was a cabinet member and was not actually involved but was very close to the situation, the other was a minor principal) I was well acquainted with the situation at the time, but have no interest in going through all that stuff again.

Your point is well taken though.

DougR

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 07:07 PM

I can see how a newspaper editor might decide not to use certain people for various reasons, including the political stance from which they write.

But taking instructions from lawyers as to who should be used and who should not? That's not an editor, that's a lickspittle. Nothing to do with politics, the creep could be any kind of liberal or whatever, that wouldn't make it any better.

And I would have thought that any true American conservative would see it that way. Freedom of the press is surely a conservative value in the USA. (It might not be a Republican virtue, but that's another matter.) And freedom of the press includes the requirement that no one tells editors what they should or should not print.

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: kendall
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:58 PM

I wonder if they ever heard of Senator McCarthy, or the first amendment?

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:46 PM

Ah, wake up and smell the coffee DougR--not a big secret that The White House has often called on major news outlets to hold back coverage on certain stories- and it has and had been publically discussed by likes of Robert McNamara, John Mitchell, and Ben Bradley--There was a Watergate forum, featuring many of the key players, that aired a while back on C-SPAN--Bradley talked about being called by Mitchell and discussing with the late and lamented Katherine Graham the implications of refusing his request--

Might I suggest, in all sincerity, that you pick up some of the after the fact accounts of Watergate, Iran Contra, etc--

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: DougR
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 01:31 AM

Oh, and M Ted, if you can back up your statement that the NY Times "surpressed stories at the request of the White House," I'll bet you could sell that story to rival newspapers for LOTS of money. Do you evidence?

Hell! Kat's group could take them to the cleaners!

DougR

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: DougR
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 01:28 AM

I can't believe this! What's their problem, kat? It can't be because the NY Times has suddenly gone conservative! What's their beef?

I did read the memo and the info you posted.

DougR

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 01:24 AM

I thought, well, maybe they aren't don't want to work with them while the litigation is in progress, but the lawsuit seems to be resolved--Anyway, the New York Times has proven itself to be something less than noble many times in the past--I recall that, on many occasions during both the Vietnam Era and the Watergate Era, they were more than willing to surpress stories at the request of the White House--

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 10:17 PM

That's what is known as "Freedom of the Press' [as long as you write just what and how we want-----]

Subject: RE: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 08:42 PM

She cutely left herself some wiggle room by attributing the list to the lawyers.

Always "us" against "them", huh, Mister Lawyer?

A

Subject: Non-Music- NYTimes Blacklists Writers
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 08:33 PM

At the urging of a couple of other Mudcatters, I am reposting this in its own thread. I had put it in the ABC rumour thread.

I think is very important for freelance writers everywhere. If you are interested in learning more about the National Writer's Union, from which I received this, please click here.

________________________________________________________

For what it is worth, the New York Times now has a blacklist of freelance writers. This is from the National Writer's Union which won a landmark case this year, Tasini vs NY Times,, in the Supreme Court, for the rights of all freelancers and their works:

"I thought The New York Times could not stoop lower. First, they stole your work. Then, they tried to scare and intimidate writers by demanding that they sign away rights they we all won in the U.S. Supreme Court. "But, the Times has now gone even further: it has created a blacklist. Several days ago, I was provided an internal New York Times memo by a confidential source (the memo is pasted below). In the memo circulated throughout the top echelons of the newspaper, top Times editor, Michaela Williams, writes that "our lawyers recommend that the newspaper not engage any of the below named plaintiffs to write for the newspaper." The memo then lists all the original 11 plaintiffs in Tasini v. The New York Times.

"It is a sad day when the paper of record resorts to the kinds of tactics that have left deep scars on the soul of this country.

"Here is what we must do RIGHT AWAY:

1. Send an e-mail to Michaela Williams at: [e-mail]

Express your outrage at The Times' action. Ask her to justify such actions that remind us of the discredited and immoral blacklists of the 1950s. Make the point that blacklists are contrary to freedom of expression--the ideal that all newspapers must live by.

"2. Call the office of Arthur Sulzberger at 212-556-3588. Convey the same message by phone that you sent via e-mail to Williams.

"3. Circulate this alert to other writers, websites and listservs. Ask your colleagues to take action also.

------------------------------------- Memo from The Times

Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:07:03 -0400
To: "News Exec"
From: Michaela Williams [e-mail]
Subject: Tasini plaintiffs

Sept. 18, 2001

Folks:

I'm sending this list around again, just in case it didn't reach you earlier. Please see that relevant assigning editors and backfield editors and clerks get copies.

Our lawyers recommend that the newspaper not engage any of the below named plaintiffs to write for the newspaper.

These are the original named plaintiffs in the Tasini lawsuit:

Jonathan Tasini
Barbara Belejack
Mary Kay Blakely
Barbara Garson
Daniel Lazare
Joan Oleck
Sonia Jaffe Robbins
Lindsy Van Gelder
David S. Whitford
H. Bruce Franklin

Named plaintiffs in a class action suit filed by the Authors Guild against The Times:

Derek Bell
Lynn Brenner

Thanks, Michaela