Imagine a city worker charged with stealing but whose identity is protected until a court decides guilt or innocence. Or a teacher suspended for sharing obscene material in class but whose name is masked until school officials vet the accusations. Or a firefighter disciplined for using drugs on the job, with details hidden from the public until the case is appealed and resolved.

The scenarios are incredible. Citizens demand information about what their government does, as well as accountability from those who work for it. We expect names of public servants accused of misconduct or dereliction – whether they work in a cubicle, classroom or fire truck – and details of complaints against them. Open records laws in most states ensure public access at least to basic information in these cases.

These imagined situations of a public kept in the dark are not far fetched, however, if the decision of six Sullivan County, Ind., citizens is allowed to harden into precedent. The Hoosier State jury ruled two weeks ago that the local newspaper defamed a sheriff’s deputy by reporting a citizen’s misconduct complaint against him. Jurors ordered The Tribune-Star, of Terre Haute, to pay the deputy, now a department detective, a whopping $1.5 million in damages.

The seven-figure award grabbed headlines in Indiana and national media outlets. But the sting of the verdict came as much in what it meant for principles of open government and press freedom. The newspaper should not have reported the complaint, the jury essentially said, without somehow divining whether its allegations were true.

The press should be silent until all facts are known, it seems, even if public safety is in question and public interest heightened.

It is no great leap from this suggestion to imagine all kinds of government investigations relegated to the shadows. Potential consequences are frightening: Parents have no idea their child’s teacher is accused of improper behavior. Taxpayers are unwitting to an employee investigated for dipping in the public till. Government employees are targets of politically motivated investigations, and those with evidence to defend them have no inkling that something is amiss. The press is powerless to report any of it.

The case at hand involved a government employee ultimately cleared of wrongdoing. Jeff Maynard was a sheriff’s deputy in Clay County, near Terre Haute, when a motorist accused him of misconduct during a February 2004 traffic stop.

The Tribune-Star reported details of the allegations, which state police investigated, and even asked Maynard to comment on them. He declined. The newspaper reported the ultimate finding that Maynard did nothing wrong. It also reported a misdemeanor charge of false reporting filed against the motorist.

Maynard sued the newspaper, citing two early stories published in March and April 2004, which included what he described as “false and defamatory” allegations.

His case went to trail three years later, in neighboring Sullivan County. The three-day proceeding drew emotions from both sides, according those in attendance, especially Maynard and his ex-wife, who described the pain caused by the allegations against him. Several jurors were moved to tears before ultimately ruling in his favor.

The newspaper is now weighing its options, which include a possible appeal.

The emotions of Maynard’s circumstances appear to have clouded principles larger than his particular case – the public’s right to know what happens in government and the press’ right to report it. The first is the premise of our democracy, from the first three words of the Constitution’s preamble. The First Amendment guarantees the latter.

Both ensure our government – and those who work for it – remain accountable to the people. Without such protection, citizens’ complaints about their government could be ignored or lost in dark corners of bureaucracy. Allegations could be leveled against both citizens and those working for government without ever having to withstand the disinfecting light of public scrutiny.

If anything, the jury’s verdict shows how fundamental values of our democracy, even after standing the tests of time, remain fragile. It should remind journalists and the public of our job to vigilantly protect these values. A world without them is unimaginable.