The Prevailing Broad View by the Popular Party of Freedoms of Press and Speech, in the Pre-Revolutionary Decade Before the American States’ Declarations of Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 277-302
Author(s):  
Wendell Bird
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Public Affairs ◽  
John Adams ◽  
Broad View ◽  
American States ◽  
The Press ◽  
Star Chamber ◽  
Popular Party

After the colonial crisis erupted in 1765, the popular party quickly embraced expansive understandings and practices of freedoms of press and speech. John Adams deplored British threats as “impudent insinuations of slander and sedition” that showed “the jaws of power are always opened to devour . . . the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.” Son of Liberty and other essayists added that the crime of seditious libel, “this Star-Chamber trumpetry,” was “utterly subversive of the liberty of the press.” William Bollan, an American, published The Freedom of Speech and Writing on Public Affairs Considered, and similarly concluded that the crimes of seditious libel and seditious words were inconsistent with freedoms of press and speech.

The Dominant British View of Freedoms of Press and Speech, in the Decade Before Fox’s Libel Act and America’s Bill of Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 195-218
Author(s):  
Wendell Bird
Keyword(s):  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Defense Counsel ◽  
Broad View ◽  
The Press ◽  
Star Chamber ◽  
Broad Understanding

In the 1780s in Britain, a broad view of freedoms of press and speech had become the dominant one, outside crown-appointed judges and Parliament. In response, Lord Mansfield reiterated his view that “liberty of the press consists in printing without any previous license.” Defense counsel in that leading libel prosecution questioned “how can it be said that the press is free because every thing may be published without a previous license, if the publisher of the most meritorious work . . . may be prosecuted” after publishing and with heavily biased rules? A large chorus of other writers said more categorically that criminal “trials for libels . . . are Star-Chamber law, which this country should not countenance,” and were inconsistent with “liberty of the press.” That broad understanding of freedoms of press and speech, which had become dominant in the 1780s, was the context in which Fox’s Libel Act became law in 1792.

Freedom of Speech: is it the Primary Right?

1996 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sydney Kentridge
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Public Affairs ◽  
Free State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Free Society ◽  
The Press ◽  
The World ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
The Right

The title of this article is not intended to disparage the value of freedom of speech in a modern democratic society. The right freely and publicly to criticise the institutions of government, the conduct of public affairs whether by the executive or Parliament, the freedom, indeed, to criticise the performance of the judiciary—that right is one of the glories of the unwritten constitution of this country. Its importance is constantly and forcefully emphasised in our highest courts. In one of the Spycatcher cases Lord Bridge of Harwich said that the right to freedom of speech is one of the fundamental freedoms essential to a free society.1 In the same case Lord Oliver quoted Blackstone's statement that the liberty of the press is essential to the nature of a free State.2 More recently Lord Goff of Chieveley, observing that he could see no inconsistency between English law and the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to freedom of speech, added: “This is scarcely surprising, since we may pride ourselves on the fact that freedom of speech has existed in this country perhaps as long as, if not longer than, it has existed in any other country in the world.”3

Off to a bad start: John Adams’s tussle over titles

2008 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C Alexander
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Vice President ◽  
The United States ◽  
John Adams ◽  
The Press ◽  
First Session

From the first days, of the first session, of the first Congress of the United States, the Senate was consumed by an issue that would do immense and lasting political harm to the sitting vice president, John Adams. The issue was a seemingly unimportant one: titles. Adams had strong opinions on what constituted a proper title for important officers of government and, either because he was unconcerned or unaware of the damage it would cause, placed himself in the middle of the brewing dispute. Adams hoped the president would be referred to as, “His highness, the President of the United States of America, and Protector of the Rights of the Same.” The suggestion enraged many, amused some, and was supported by few. He lost the fight over titles and made fast enemies with several of the Senators he was constitutionally obligated to preside over. Adams was savaged in the press, derided in the Senate and denounced by one of his oldest and closest friends. Not simply an isolated incident of political tone-deafness, this event set the stage for the campaign against Adams as a monarchist and provided further proof of his being woefully out of touch.

How to Tell the Truth without Outraging the Press?

MedienJournal ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Li Xiguang
Keyword(s):  
News Media ◽  
Public Affairs ◽  
Chinese Government ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
The Public ◽  
News Stories ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Government ◽  
Chinese News Media

The commercialization of meclia in China has cultivated a new journalism business model characterized with scandalization, sensationalization, exaggeration, oversimplification, highly opinionated news stories, one-sidedly reporting, fabrication and hate reporting, which have clone more harm than good to the public affairs. Today the Chinese journalists are more prey to the manipu/ation of the emotions of the audiences than being a faithful messenger for the public. Une/er such a media environment, in case of news events, particularly, during crisis, it is not the media being scared by the government. but the media itself is scaring the government into silence. The Chinese news media have grown so negative and so cynica/ that it has produced growing popular clistrust of the government and the government officials. Entering a freer but fearful commercially mediated society, the Chinese government is totally tmprepared in engaging the Chinese press effectively and has lost its ability for setting public agenda and shaping public opinions. 

ДО ПИТАННЯ ПРО ОСОБЛИВОСТІ ТЕАТРАЛЬНО-КРИТИЧНОГО ПРОЦЕСУ В УКРАЇНІ 1920-х РОКІВ

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Admink Admink
Keyword(s):  
Editorial Policy ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Professional Status ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Artistic Process ◽  
The Press ◽  
Theater Criticism ◽  
Ideological Attitudes ◽  
Theatrical Criticism ◽  
Political Realities

Досліджуються закономірності розвитку театральної критики на тлі культурно-мистецького процесу та складних суспільно-політичних реалій 1920-х років. В Україні у першій пол. 1920-х рр. мав місце спонтанний вихід багатьох нових видань, для яких характерна несистематична поява, короткотривалість існування та нечітка редакційна політика. На відміну від політизованої преси ІІ пол. 1920-х рр. періодика І пол. 1920-х рр. не завжди відповідала ідеологічним настановам влади. Це обумовлено ситуацією у країні, невпорядкованою системою друку та, відповідно, відносною свободою слова. Зосереджено увагу на зміні мистецьких орієнтирів, вагомості та професійному стані театральної критики ІІ пол. 1920-х рр. у порівнянні з попереднім періодом. Адже саме тоді відбувається активізація представників різних поколінь театральних критиків. Ключові слова: театральна критика, 1920 роки, суспільно-політичні реалії, періодичні видання. The objectives of the article are to study the patterns of the theatrical criticism development against the turbulent cultural and artistic process and the complex of socio-political realities of the 1920 s. In Ukraine in the 1st half of the 1920 s there was a spontaneous output of many new publications, which are characterized by a non-systematic appearance, short-term existence and a rather fuzzy editorial policy in Ukraine in the first half of the 1920 s. Unlike the politicized press of the 2 nd half of 1920 s, periodicals of the 1st half of the 1920 s not always corresponded to the ideological attitudes of the authorities. This was due to the situation in the country, the disorderly system of the press and, accordingly, the relative freedom of speech. The article also focuses on the changing of artistic guidelines, the weight and professional status of theater criticism of the 2 nd half of 1920 s, compared with the previous period. It is at this time that the representatives of different generations of theater critics become more active. Key words: theater criticism, 1920-s, socio-political realities, periodicals.

PERSECUTION AND THE ART OF FREEDOM: ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF FREE PRESS AND FREE SPEECH IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-208
Author(s):  
Khalil M. Habib
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Alexis De Tocqueville ◽  
Free Society ◽  
Free Press ◽  
Constituent Element ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Right ◽  
Shed Light

AbstractAccording to Tocqueville, the freedom of the press, which he treats as an extension of the freedom of speech, is a primary constituent element of liberty. Tocqueville treats the freedom of the press in relation to and as an extension of the right to assemble and govern one’s own affairs, both of which he argues are essential to preserving liberty in a free society. Although scholars acknowledge the importance of civil associations to liberty in Tocqueville’s political thought, they routinely ignore the importance he places on the freedom of the press and speech. His reflections on the importance of the free press and speech may help to shed light on the dangers of recent attempts to censor the press and speech.

scholarly journals Discarding Dariano: The Heckler's Veto and a New School Speech Doctrine

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien M. Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
New School ◽  
The Press ◽  
Spoken Words

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 26 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Of all of the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, perhaps none inspire the level of interest and debate among both scholars and laypersons as the freedom of speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and it has long been held that “speech” encompasses not merely spoken words butany conduct which is “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document