explicit kind and with a degree ofndetail and variety which Larry Flyntnmight admire. This was too much fornthe intelligentsia which likes its subversionnfully clad — preferably withnthree-piece suit and necktie.nLaurens turned to the editorialnboard of writers which owns 40 percentnof Le Monde’s shares. They votednno confidence in projects of redressingnfinances. He next turned to printersnand other staff, pleading for a temporarynreduction in wages. After all, hasnthe paper not been always on the sidenof the workers, communist-led unions,nthe suffering proletariat? Thenproletarians said No to lowered wages,nand went on strike. There were daysnwhen Le Monde did not appear at all.nThe universe groaned and the NewnYork Times remained without quota­nVigilantes have thrown a scare intonthe American press. First there wasnBernhard Hugo Goetz in New York,nthen a pair of men in their sevenhes,ndefending themselves against the junglenlaw-currently being enforced onncity streets. The word vigilante was anclue to the press lords’ state of mind. Itnsummoned up pictures of night ridersnwith masked faces, innocent cihzensndragged out of bed to face a kangarooncourt: 50 lashes for spitting on thensidewalk, public hanging for actingnuppity. By definition, a vigilante is anmember of a group and participates inna collective action. There is more tonthis semantic demagoguery than thenusual junior college dropout vocabularynof our journalists. The word is out:nput Goetz down as a vigilante andnwe’re safe.nIt is a strange phenomenon whennthe act of “self-defense gets branded asnvigilantism, when fending off an assailantncan be described as “taking thenlaw into your own hands.” What is thenfoundation of law, if not the security ofnour persons and property? The lawntions. New staff meetings, new pleadings,nto no avail. Andre Laurens leftnignominiously the offices that Beuve-nMery had usurped with such a noblengesture exactly 40 years before.nThe new director is no other thannmy “objective” correspondent, AndrenFontaine. He is an expert in foreignnpolicy—that is the field where ournclashes occurred—has a solid, nononsensenstyle, and a willingness endlesslynto accommodate the Zeitgeist.nThe question remains, will Le Mondensurvive? If it were actually in danger,nthe Socialist government would bail itnout simply by instructing its nationalizednbanks to open credit. But there isnanother disquieting sign on the paper’snhorizon. While Le Monde was strugglingnagainst collapse, another dailynrapidly made it from a repulsive sheet.nAMERICAN PROSCENIUMn-^Roman as well as English andnAmerican—has always recognized thenright of citizens to repel force withnforce. In the good old days beforenreligious fanatics reformed the penalnsystem, any crime that threatened lifen—murder, rape, kidnapping, arson,nand even armed robbery—could benpunished with death. In such cases thenstate was only doing what an individualnwould do for himself if he had to.nBut in this era of enlightenment, whennchild molesters serve a year or two in anrest home and murderers are releasednon technicalities, it is an outrage tonthink that an ordinary citizen canncheat justice by fighting back.nThe punk linguistics of the pressnwere not confined to the usual suspectsn—the New York Times and the BostonnGlobe, for example. Even the ordinarilynsober Wall Street Journal, whichnwas at some pains to defend Mr. Goetznfrom the charge of vigilantism, stillnperversely misinterpreted the word:nVigilantes, in their opinion, are privatencitizens or policemen who “takenthe law into their own hands, to injurennna kind of Village Voice born in thencultural revolution of 1968, to respectability.nIt is the Liberation, whoseneditor understood the first law of journalism:nsharks eat sharks. It is rumorednthat Mitterrand’s wife is behind SergenJuly, the editor in chief, who last yearnswitched from turtleneck sweater tonnecktie. Opposition figures havenbegun to casually drop a hint on televisionnthat they are subscribers ofnLiberation. When rightist snobs beginncoming on board, leftist success isnguaranteed. ccnThomas Molnar is on the faculty atnthe City University of New York andna visiting professor of religious studiesnat Yale University.nas a form of summary and privatenpunishment.” The authors (lawyers, ofncourse) cling to the superstition thatnjudges know what is best for us. Vigilantenjustice has its drawbacks but it isntypically neither summary nor private.nAt their best, committees of vigilancenin Montana and the far West werenorderly bodies of solid citizens respondingnto a breakdown in law andnorder. Their proceedings were deliberatenand public and were usually annexpression of community solidarity. Ifnvigilante groups really are armingnthemselves throughout the U.S., it isnbecause of the widespread perceptionnthat the forces of law and order havenbecome powerless to protect us.nBut it is not just organized resistancenwhich the journalists find intolerable.nThey hate the whole idea of selfdefense,nthat a man should presume tonthink his life is more valuable than thenmugger’s. The New York Times wentnso far as to suggest that New York lawndid not give you the right to use forcenin defending yourself, but it did givenyou the right to run away. A fewnAPRIL 198S/35n