Jeffery A. Smith

Printers and press freedom : the ideology of early American journalism

This book seeks to challenge the view that the eighteenth century understanding of the meaning of freedom of the press and the First Amendment was a narrow or limited one. The author examines the relationship between theory that laid the groundwork for the press clause and the actions of legislatures and journalists who confronted the issues surrounding freedom of expression. Through exhaustive research in colonial periods, including the religious as well as the civil press, the author shows that the attitudes of colonial journalists, particularly regarding seditious libel, were much closer to current interpretations than has previously been understood. He contends that colonists were publishing and justifying aggressive journalism for decades before the Revolution and that by the time of the First Amendment, Americans had forged a general libertarian press ideology that was incompatible with seditious libel.

Moral Guardians and the Origins of the Right to Privacy

The concept of a legal right to privacy existed long before 1890 when Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis published their much-acclaimed Harvard Law Review article advocating tort liability for invasions of privacy by publication. A number of writers and public intellectuals had already dramatized a need for protecting people from the prying of the press. Their essays upheld Victorian social standards and typically assigned blame to commercial pressures on journalists to satisfy public appetites. Attempting to resolve a conflict between civility and civil liberties, they either endorsed as much self-regulation as possible or called for a legal remedy. Nineteenth-century privacy advocates raised issues of audience tastes and media ethics that remain contentious today.

A Reappraisal of Legislative Privilege and American Colonial Journalism

Legal historians have differed substantially on the question of what the term “freedom of the press” meant in the century that produced the First Amendment. Some have argued that a free press was perceived to be a necessary check on government.’ Others-most notably Leonard W. Levy-have contended that the 18th century understanding of the concept rarely extended beyond the position taken in Blackstone’s Commentaries, that press freedom meant the absence of prior restraints and that criticism of government tended to undermine authority and should therefore be subject to legal action.* It has been generally agreed, however, that court trials for seditious libel were not a signifi’ See, in particular, Irving Brant, The Billof Rights, I ts Origin and Meaning (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1965). See also Vincent Blasi, “The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory,” 1977 A.B. F. Res. J. 521 (Summer 1977); Thomas 1. Emcrson, “Colonial Intentions and Current Realities of the First Amendment,” I25 U.Pa.L.Rev. 737 (1977); Stephen Gard,“The Absoluteness of the First Amendment,” 58 Neb.L.Rev. 1053 (1979). 1 Leonard W. Levy, Legacy of Suppression. Freedom of Speech and Press in Eorly American History (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1960); William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Lows of England (London, 1765-1769). Book 4, Chapter 11. pp. 151-154. Seealso, Walter Berns, The First Amendment and the Future of American Democracy (New York Basic Books, Inc.. 1976). pp. 80-146; Philip B. Kurland, “The Irrelevance of the Constitution: The First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press Clauses.” 29 Drake L. Rev. I (1979-1980). 3 Stanley N. Katz, ed.. A Brief Narrative of the Caseand Trial of John Peter Zenger . . . (Cambridge: The BeIknap Press of Harvard University Press. 1963). p. 3 0 Levy, Ltgacy of Suppression, pp. 19-21; Harold L. Nelson. “Seditious Libel in Colonial America,” 3 Am.1. Legal Hist. 160 (1959). For the developments in English and American law whlch led to the Zenger decision, see Clifton 0. Lawhorne. Defamation and Public Qtjjcials. The Evolving Low of Libel (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1971). pp. 1-37. cant threat to American colonists after the Zenger prosecution in 1735 and that the main obstacle to unfettered publication prior to the Revolution was the ability of provincial legislatures to punish offending printers and writers for “contempt” or “breach of legislative privilege.”3 Since even mild observations could be branded as seditious and could, at least theoretically, lead to imprisonment as long as the assemblies remained in session, any attempt to understand the context of the First Amendment would be incomplete without an examination of the defenses used by colonial publishers in such cases and at least some determination of the extent to which legislative restraint was considered legitimate and effective.

Writing Media History Articles: Manuscript Standards and Scholarly Objectives

Editors of academic journals make general statements about criteria for accepting submissions, but more specific advice is often needed. What are the standards for history manuscripts in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, especially now that its documentation style is being changed to American Psychological Association (APA)? The journal’s history articles are useful examples of how to set substantial purposes and present perceptive interpretations. As they contribute to knowledge, such studies can stimulate thought about human experience and possibilities.

Lincoln's other War: Public Opinion, Press Issues, and Personal Pleas

Abstract Claiming a need and an authority to act for public safety during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln and his generals used prerogative powers to restrict freedom of expression. A number of citizens disputed the denials of their rights. Their responses raised many issues such as violations of the U.S. Constitution, the need of voters to have information, and the hardships, errors, and inconsistencies of the enforcement. Confronted with the consequences of suppression, the president sometimes relented or implemented more lenient policies. The decisions tested the principles of one man and a nation.