scholarly journals Libel or Not? The War of Words between Lajos Kossuth and New York Editor James Watson Webb

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Kenneth Nyirady
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Public Reason ◽  
The United States ◽  
Personal Attack ◽  
The Public ◽  
War Of Independence ◽  
Day To Day Operations

Although three notable American editors opposed Lajos Kossuth before and during his visit to the United States in 1851-52, the most influential was arguably James Watson Webb, editor of the New York Courier and Enquirer (NYCE). Webb had been appointed by President Zachary Taylor to be Charge d’Affaires to Vienna in 1849 but had neglected to wait for confirmation by the Senate before traveling to Vienna. When the Senate rejected his appointment by an overwhelming vote, an embittered Webb was obliged to return to the United States. Although Webb had made many political enemies, the public reason given for his Senate rejection was that body intended to keep the post vacant as a “punishment” for Austria’s brutal suppression of the Hungarian rebels after their defeat in August 1849. Webb allegedly held Kossuth responsible for his rejected nomination, and upon returning to the United States and resuming the day-to-day operations of the NYCE, the paper's coverage of Hungary and Kossuth turned negative. During his visit to New York, Kossuth hinted that the Austrians might have bribed a certain New York editor to publish falsehoods about the Hungarian War of Independence. Webb took this hint as a personal attack and demanded an explanation from Kossuth, who never clearly explained which editor he was referring to.

Community Services: Contrasts Between Resident and Nonresident Landowners in the Adirondack Region of New York

1975 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-142
Author(s):  
Robert G. Craig ◽  
Harry P. Mapp
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
The United States ◽  
Community Services ◽  
World War ◽  
Revolutionary Change ◽  
Role Of Government ◽  
The Public

“There is more than enough evidence to show that the states and localities, far from being weak sisters, have actually been carrying the brunt of domestic governmental progress in the United States ever since the end of World War II … Moreover, they have been largely responsible for undertaking the truly revolutionary change in the role of government in the United States that has occurred over the past decade.”–Daniel J. Elazar, The Public Interest

Manœuvres to Ensure the Avoidance of Collision

1997 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 400-410
Author(s):  
E. S. Calvert
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Great Majority ◽  
The United States ◽  
Typical Case ◽  
Field Of View ◽  
Housing Estate ◽  
The Public ◽  
The World ◽  
Very High

This paper was first published in 1960 (Vol. 13, p. 127). It is followed by comments from John Kemp. The paper has been abridged, including the omission of section 5 which described a proposal for a new radar display.When the problem of collision in the air is discussed, it is usual to start by pointing out the enormous closing speed of two modern aircraft meeting head-on, and to conclude from this that avoidance on the ‘see and be seen’ principle has ceased to be possible. The fact is, however, that the great majority of mid-air collisions (about 85 percent) occur within five miles of an airport and the typical case is not the head-on one, but the case in which the two aircraft crab into one another from a direction which may be anywhere around the whole enclosing sphere. Since the field of view of the aircrew covers only about 20 percent of the enclosing sphere, the aircrew of colliding aircraft seldom see each other. It would seem, therefore, that the ‘see and be seen’ principle never did afford much protection, even when speeds were low. In other words, the fact that the number of mid-air collisions in Europe has hitherto been small is not primarily due to seeing and evading, although this sometimes happens, but to the fact that the airspace is very large compared to the volume of all the aircraft in it at any given time. However, as traffic densities go up, the risk rapidly increases, and in congested airspace, such as that around New York, the problem of avoiding collision has already become acute. In the period 1948–57, there were 159 mid-air collisions in the United States, and many of these made headlines in the world press. One can imagine the public outcry if two large transports were to collide over a housing estate; but unless something effective is done, something like this will presumably happen eventually. At very high altitudes the ‘see and be seen’ principle certainly fails, by day, because the speed will be high, and in addition, the range at which a pilot can see an object the size of an aircraft may be less than 1½ miles due to what is sometimes called ‘high-altitude myopia’.

The Great Interruption

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Goodier ◽  
Karen Pastorello
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
The United States ◽  
Woman Suffrage ◽  
Citizenship Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
Suffrage Movement ◽  
Woman Suffrage Movement

This chapter examines the woman suffrage movement during the outbreak of war in Europe. Contradictions and upheaval related to the war marred the last three years of the suffrage campaign in New York. Most suffragists and anti-suffragists turned their attention from suffragism to patriotism, war preparedness, or pacifism between August 1914 and April 1917, when the United States entered the war. The movement, which previously faced divisions among members of its rank and file over tactics and strategies related to women's enfranchisement, now divided along new lines of patriotism and militarism. Sensitive to citizenship rights and responsibilities, most suffragists felt compelled to choose a position in response to the war. Nevertheless, they insisted on keeping their campaign before the public, most often linking suffrage with patriotism to highlight their worthiness for full citizenship.

Freedom of Speech and Public Reason

2021 ◽  
pp. 136-156
Author(s):  
Wojciech Sadurski
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Public Reason ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Issue ◽  
Typical Pattern ◽  
The Public ◽  
The One

This chapter addresses the salience of the Rawlsian idea of public reason for freedom of speech. It applies a philosophical template of Public Reason to a typically legal issue: what motivations for speech restrictions render the restriction legitimate under the Public Reason criterion, and what motivations taint the law as illegitimate, because they are non-endorsable by reasonable persons to whom they apply. Traces of this pattern of argument can be found in several legal systems: in the United States, Germany, New Zealand, and Australia, when they grapple with constitutionality of restrictions on freedom of speech, and choose the motive path (rather than the effects path) of scrutiny. The most typical pattern of argument is the one which disfavours content-oriented restrictions, as compared to content-neutral restrictions. This distinction offers attractive avenues of argument when it is viewed in the context of legislative motives, and how they fare under a general principle of Public Reason. The chapter then establishes that viewpoint restrictions and subject-matter restrictions—two subcategories of a broader genus of content-based restrictions of freedom of speech—correspond to two perceived wrongful motivations in regulating speech: intolerance and paternalism.

Back Again? Valeska Gert’s Exiles

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Elswit
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Weimar Republic ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Cities

This chapter questions what exile means for an artist whose performances relied on a strategy of estrangement. In so doing, it follows Valeska Gert (1892–1978) through her American exile and back to Germany, exploring the shifting dynamics of her reception abroad and upon her return to a very changed homeland. Gert came into the public eye as a soloist in the late teens, touring mostly through Germany but also abroad during the Weimar Republic. From 1933 to 1938, Gert appeared in European cities, including London, Paris, Budapest, Krakow, and Prague, as well as in New York. In 1939 she emigrated to the United States and eventually ran one of the more successful exile cabarets in New York from 1941 to 1945, named the Beggar Bar. After the Beggar Bar closed for licensing problems, she decided to return to Germany.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document