Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a closely-watched First Amendment case, the Supreme Court declined Monday to decide whether free-speech rights shield the publisher of a murder manual from a civil lawsuit seeking damages. The justices let stand a U.S. appeals court ruling that cleared the way for a wrongful death lawsuit against Paladin Press to proceed in Maryland. A U.S. district court judge had initially dismissed the case. At issue is whether Paladin may be held liable for the actions of a man who obtained the book "Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors," and followed its step-by-step instructions to commit a 1993 triple murder. Mildred Horn, her invalid, eight-year-old son Trevor and the boy's nurse, Janice Saunders, were killed in Horn's home in Silver Spring, Maryland. James Perry was convicted of the murders and is awaiting execution. Lawrence Horn, who hired Perry to kill his ex-wife, son and Saunders, is serving a life sentence. He ordered the hit to get his hands on a $2 million insurance settlement awarded after his son was paralyzed, prosecutors said. Perry followed the directions in "Hit Man" by killing the victims at their home, shooting them in the eyes at close range with a gun recommended by the book, putting stolen license plates on his car and staying in a motel near the crime scene. Paladin has argued that it was within its First Amendment rights as a provider of information. The victims' families allege the small Boulder, Colorado, publisher effectively aided and abetted Perry in the crime. The central legal question, as previously defined by the Supreme Court in a landmark First Amendment ruling, is whether an entity, in distributing information in a general way, can be found to have advocated or incited lawless action. The district court dismissed the Horn/Saunders family lawsuit in August 1996, but the appeals court in Richmond reversed that ruling last November. Appeals Court Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote in the ruling that Paladin may be held liable because speech that aids and abets does "not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment." Paladin's case has drawn support from numerous legal, publishing, media and entertainment organizations. A group of high-powered media companies and press associations had urged the Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court ruling. "To hold a word or an image jointly responsible for even the most ghastly criminal act diminishes us all, because it means that some valuable speech surely will be chilled in the process," the group said. But the Supreme Court denied Paladin's appeal without any comment or dissent, refusing to hear the case. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
