[Eugene Volokh, July 23, 2008 at 2:10pm] Trackbacks
That Old English Spirit:

I was reading a (partisan) pamphlet with an account of the 1819 trial of Samuel Waddington for seditious libel. A few days after the infamous Peterloo massacre, Waddington distributed a handbill inviting people to a meeting aimed at remonstrating against the government for its actions. He had also held a board containing the placard and the words "The meeting is deferred to a future day." The government's theory, endorsed by the judge, was that this sort of material "tend[ed] to excite disaffection and a breach of the peace."

The jury acquitted Waddington, but what particularly struck me was the colloquy that followed, and on which the pamphlet ended:

The Jury retired for an hour, and returned with a verdict of Not Guilty.

The Officer hinted to Mr. Waddington, that he had better ask the favour of the Court to have his board returned. Mr. Waddington. I ask no favour, Sir; I am acquitted by my judges, the Jury. The board is my property, and as such I shall take it without leave.

He then shouldered his board, and went off in triumph.

donaldk2 (mail):
It is the genius of the American experience that (excepting the quickly repudiated Sedition Act in the Adams administration) this nation did not find it necessary to adopt these benighted English customs.

"Seditious libel"! Enough by itself to justify the Revolutionary War.
7.23.2008 4:00pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
donaldk2: I should note that seditious libel prosecutions in state courts continued into at least the first decade of the 19th century, and included prosecutions by pro-Jefferson forces of people who had allegedly libeled democracy. See, for instance, Respublica v. Dennie, 4 Yeates 267 (Pa. 1805), where defendant was prosecuted for seditious libel for publishing the following:
A democracy is scarcely tolerable at any period of national history. Its omens are always sinister, and its powers are unpropitious. With all the lights of experience blazing before our eyes, it is impossible not to discover the futility of this form of government. It was weak and wicked at Athens, it was bad in Sparta, and worse in Rome. It has been tried in France, and terminated in despotism. It was tried in England, and rejected with the utmost loathing and abhorrence. It is on its trial here, and its issue will be civil war, desolation and anarchy. No wise man but discerns its imperfections, no good man but shudders at its miseries, no honest man but proclaims its fraud, and no brave man but draws his sword against its force. The institution of a scheme of polity so radically contemptible and vicious, is a memorable example of what the villainy of some men can devise, the folly of others receive, and both establish in despite of reason, reflection, and sensation.


The jury, I should note, acquitted.
7.23.2008 4:17pm
donaldk2 (mail):
I stand corrected. Thank you. I should have done some research before popping off.
7.23.2008 4:22pm
Mark Rockwell (mail):
donaldk2:

"Seditious libel"! Enough by itself to justify the Revolutionary War.



Can I just say how happy I am that you appropriately put the punctuation outside of the quote-marks.... You, sir, made my 3 o'clock hour.
7.23.2008 4:27pm
Jay:
I was googling about juror's oaths the other night, and came across a Google book of transcripts from a number of Queen Anne-era treason trials premised on the "tearing down of meeting houses." The crown called witnesses that pretty well established the defendants were rioting, the attorney general made lengthy orations, and the judge basically told the jury to convict, yet a series of defendants was acquitted. This left me fairly impressed with the robustness of the jury system in what I'd thought was a relatively autocratic time period.
7.23.2008 5:05pm
Bama 1L:
If the board had been obtained illegally, would it have been due back to Waddington before the trial?
7.23.2008 5:22pm
donaldk2 (mail):
EV's correction of my ill-informed comment led me to a Google search, finding a wonderfully informative treatise titled Thomas Jefferson, Original Intent, and the shaping of American law.

I found that in TJ's own administration he was quite content to use libel prosecutions to harass his adversaries. It took a few years, unsuccessful prosecutions, and the Supreme Court to end the practice.

I enthusiastically recommend the article linked:

http://www.law.nyu.edu/pubs/annualsurvey/
documents/62_N.Y.U._Ann._Surv._Am._L._45_2006.pdf
7.23.2008 5:57pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
Would someone with expertise in Jefferson's thought care to comment on whether Jefferson was inconsistent in his willingness to prosecute seditious libel or whether he somehow considered this consistent with his views on freedom of expression?
7.23.2008 9:14pm
Skyler (mail) (www):
What a delightful story.

Mark Rockwell, why would anyone be glad that punctuation is put (incorrectly) after a quotation mark?
7.23.2008 9:43pm
Anon Y. Mous:

Mark Rockwell, why would anyone be glad that punctuation is put (incorrectly) after a quotation mark?

I can't speak for Mark, but, speaking for myself, I also prefer the British style of quoting, where you never put your own punctuation into the mouth of the person you are quoting. It may be nonstandard for American English, but it most certainly is not incorrect, and it is a more precise method of communication.
7.23.2008 10:30pm