The Public / Private Distinction And the Lewinsky Episode: A Loss of Innocence

Abstract

From the time the Monica Lewinsky story broke in early 1998, it has challenged the American people to reevaluate the dividing line between matters of concern and private matters that pertain only to those directly involved in them. The difficulty of distinguishing between and private realms was sorely apparent in the nationally televised address given by President Bill Clinton on August 17, 1998, in which acknowledged that had maintained a relationship with Lewinsky that was appropriate.1 On the one hand, Clinton admitted that he did not volunteer in a deposition taken earlier that year, although maintained that the answers gave were legally accurate.2 A deposition is a public matter; it is taken under oath and sanctioned by the American justice system as a means of allowing parties to a civil lawsuit to discover information of potential importance to their cases. Clinton was the defendant in the lawsuit in question, a sexual harassment suit brought against him by Paula Jones. He objected to the line of questioning pertaining to his relationship with Lewinsky; a federal district judge overruled his objections and ordered him to respond. At the time of his deposition, his only morally acceptable options were to obey the judge's order and answer truthfully, or to exercise civil disobedience and continue refusing to comply (risking a contempt citation). Perjury was not a morally acceptable option, particularly for the nation's chief executive, who is constitutionally charged with ultimate responsibility for enforcing its laws.