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.
"Seditious libel"! Enough by itself to justify the Revolutionary War.
The jury, I should note, acquitted.
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.
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
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.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.