« AnteriorContinuar »
fall within the compass of the human mind. While this remains, freedom will flourish; but should it be lost or impaired, its principles will neither be well understood nor long retained. To render the magistrate a judge of truth, and engage his authority in the suppression of opinions, shows an inattention to the nature and design. of political society-an attempt to distinguish truth from error, to countenance one set of opinions and the prejudice of another, is to apply power in a manner mischievous and absurd. (p. 84)
If we have recourse to experience, that kind of enlarged experience in particular which history furnishes, we shall not be apt to entertain any violent alarm at the greatest liberty of discussion. We shall there see that to this we are indebted for those improvements in arts and sciences which have meliorated in so great a degree the condition of mankind. (p. 85-6)
The law hath amply provided against overt acts of sedition and disorder, and to suppress mere opinions by any other method than reasoning and argument is the height of tyranny. Freedom of thought being intimately connected with the happiness and dignity of man in every stage of his being, is of so much more importance than the preservation of any Constitution, that to infringe the former under pretense of supporting the latter, is to sacrifice the means to the end. (p. 96-7)
It is said that a government ought to guarantee its subjects "security and a sense of security"; whence it is inferred that magistrates ought to keep ears open to the declamations of popular orators, and stop such as are calculated to create alarm. This inference, however, is met by the difficulty that since every considerable change, polit11 English philosopher. From his Principles of Ethics. Vol. II. p. 142, D. Appleton & Co. New York. 1900,
ical or religious, is, when first urged, dreaded by the majority, and thus diminishes their sense of security, the advocacy of it should be prevented. . .
Evidently such proposals to limit the right of free speech, political or religious, can be defended only by making the tacit assumption that whatever political or religious beliefs are at the time established, are wholly true; and since this tacit assumption has throughout the past proved to be habitually erroneous, regard for experience may reasonably prevent us from assuming that the current beliefs are wholly true. We must recognize free speech as still being the agency by which error is to be dissipated, and cannot without papal assumption interdict it. .
It is to the abnormal condition of the body politic that all evils arising from an unrestrained expression of opinion must be attributed, and not to the unrestrained expression itself.
· AMERICAN SOURCES
I contend that whatever has been said about it amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration that the "liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved"? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in the Constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and the government. . . And here after all, as I intimated on another occasion, we must seek for the only solid basis of our rights.
To say, therefore, that there is no occasion for the civil magistrate to interfere in matters of religion, is either to contradict plain and demonstrate fact; [as he had just before shown from Holy Writ] or else to charge the divine author of that dispensation with adding the sanction of his approbation and the seal of his authority to a useless and unnecessary institution.
1 In the Federalist, no. 84.
2 A New England authority. From his protest against a constitution to provide for separation of church and state. A Dissertation Upon the Right and Obligation of the Civil Magistrate to Take Care of the Interests of Religion and Provide for Its Support. p. 15.
I am far from intending that these authorities mean, by the freedom of the press, a press wholly beyond the reach of the law, for this would be emphatically Pandora's box, the source of every evil. And yet the house of delegates, in Virginia, by their resolution of the 7th January, 1800, and which appears to have been intended for benefit and instruction of the Union, came forward as the advocates of a press totally unshackled, and declare, in so many words, that "the baneful tendency of the sedition act was but little diminished by the privilege of giving in evidence the truth of the matter contained in political writings." They seem also to consider it as the exercise of a pernicious influence, and as striking at the root of free discussion, to punish, even for a false and malicious writing, published with intent to defame those who administer the government. If this doctrine was to prevail, the press would become a pest, and destroy the public morals. Against such a commentary upon the freedom of the American press, I beg leave to enter my protest. The founders of our governments were too wise and too just, ever to have intended, by the freedom of the press, a right to circulate falsehood as well as truth, or that the press should be the lawful vehicle of malicious defamation, or an engine for evil and designing men, to cherish, for mischievous purposes sedition, irreligion and impurity. Such an abuse of the press would be incompatible with the existence and good order of civil society. The true rule of law is, that the intent and tendency of the publication is, in every instance, to be the substantial inquiry on the trial, and that the truth is admissible in evidence, to explain that intent, and not in every instance to justify it.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, 1804-1814, Chancellor, 1814-1823. In People v. Croswell, 3 Johnson's Cases, 337, commenting on the Virginia resolution on tolerance.
The anarchist is the enemy of humanity, the enemy of all mankind, and his is a deeper degree of criminality than any other. . . No paper here or abroad should be permitted circulation in this country if it propagates anarchistic opinions.
Everything that he (the citizen) has or is, or hopes to be-property, liberty, life-may be required. In time of peace, an attempt to interfere with the least of these would be, and ought to be, resisted to the utmost. In time of war, when the nation is in deadly peril, every freeman who prizes the boon of enduring liberty, will lay them all, freely and ungrudgingly, upon the sacrificial altar of his country.
"LUSK COMMITTEE" REPORT"
No matter how imposing are the school buildings, how elaborate the curricula, how sound the text books, the success of the school system depends in the last analysis upon the character and viewpoint of the teachers and instructors who carry out the program, and who influence the pupils with whom they come in contact. It is apparent that these teachers must be acquainted with the forces at play upon public opinion. They must recognize the influences which seek to undermine the confidence and respect which their pupils or students should have for the government and laws of this Commonwealth. They should be trained and eager to combat these influences, and, in order that they may do this, it is essential that
4 Message to Congress. (United States Senate, Document no. 426. 60th Congress, 1st Session.)
5 Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court. From his Constitutional Power and World Affairs. p. 98-9. Columbia Univ. Press. New York. 1919.
6 Revolutionary Radicalism: Report of the Joint Legislative Committee of the State of New York Investigating Seditious Activities. Filed April
24, 1920 in the Senate of the State of New York. J. B. Lyon Co., printers. Albany, 1920.