Podcast appearances and mentions of john peter zenger

A long, long time ago in New York — in the 1730s, back when the city was a holding of the British, with a little over 10,000 inhabitants — a German printer named John Peter Zenger decided to print a four-page newspaper called the New York Weekly Journal. This is pretty remarkable in itself, as there was only one other newspaper in town called the New York Gazette, an organ of the British crown and the governor of the colony.But Zenger's paper would call to question the actions of that governor, a virtual despot named William Cosby, and in so doing, set in motion an historic trial that marked a triumph for liberty and modern democratic rights, including freedom of the press and the power of jury nullification.This entire story takes place in lower Manhattan, and most of it on a couple floors of old New York City Hall at Wall Street and Nassau Street. Many years later, this spot would see the first American government and the inauguration of George Washington.Many could argue that the trial that occurs here on August 4, 1735, is equally important to the causes of democracy and a free press.We're marking the 290th anniversary of this landmark trial with a newly re-edited, remastered version of our show from 2013.

In den Vereinigten Staaten hat die Pressefreiheit Verfassungsrang. Viel dazu beigetragen hat der Prozess gegen John Peter Zenger.

You Are There - The Trial Of John Peter Zenger

Whether you call it Jury Nullification or Conscientious Acquittal, today's episode is all about the fight to reinvigorate the jury trial and the independence of the jury. Joining Hunter to discuss is Clark Neily, Senior VP for Legal Studies at the CATO Institute. Before America was even a country, the power of a jury to acquit someone of a charge they were legally guilty of because the jury disagree with the law as applied in this case was unquestioned. Over time however, prosecutors and judges pushed for and enabled the gradual erosion of the juries power. Now, more than 250 years after the founding, the jury trial is little more than a relic of the past, and even a whisper of jury independence in a court room can get jurors removed from a case. How did this happen and what can be done to reverse this trend? Find out by listening to today's episode!   Guests: Clark Neily, Senior Vice President for Legal Studies, CATO Institute Resources: Trial of John Peter Zenger https://www.ushistory.org/us/7c.asp Follow Clark on Twitter (not calling it X not even if there is a fire) https://twitter.com/conlawwarrior/with_replies CATO Jury Independence https://www.cato.org/policy-report/january/february-2014/historical-look-power-jury-independence#:~:text=Recently%20re%20released%20by%20the,abused%2C%20as%20has%20all%20power.   Contact Hunter Parnell: Publicdefenseless@gmail.com  Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter                                                                 @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com  Subscribe to the Patron www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast  Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN  

Dr. Dan talks with Kirsten C. Tynan, Executive Director of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA). She has been educating people for more than a decade on the protective role of the jury and the full rights and authority of jurors. Her educational workplaces special focus is on jurors' right to temper the law with mercy through jury nullification to deliver just verdicts.E151: Kirsten C. Tynan - Jury Nullification Revisited (Part 2 of 4)E151: Kirsten C. Tynan - Jury Nullification Revisited (Part 3 of 4)E151: Kirsten C. Tynan - Jury Nullification Revisited (Part 4 of 4)

Dr. Dan talks with Kirsten C. Tynan, Executive Director of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA). She has been educating people for more than a decade on the protective role of the jury and the full rights and authority of jurors. Her educational workplaces special focus is on jurors' right to temper the law with mercy through jury nullification to deliver just verdicts.E151: Kirsten C. Tynan - Jury Nullification Revisited (Part 1 of 4)E151: Kirsten C. Tynan - Jury Nullification Revisited (Part 3 of 4)E151: Kirsten C. Tynan - Jury Nullification Revisited (Part 4 of 4)

Dr. Dan talks with Kirsten C. Tynan, Executive Director of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA). She has been educating people for more than a decade on the protective role of the jury and the full rights and authority of jurors. Her educational workplaces special focus is on jurors' right to temper the law with mercy through jury nullification to deliver just verdicts.E151: Kirsten C. Tynan - Jury Nullification Revisited (Part 1 of 4)E151: Kirsten C. Tynan - Jury Nullification Revisited (Part 2 of 4)E151: Kirsten C. Tynan - Jury Nullification Revisited (Part 4 of 4)

Dr. Dan talks with Kirsten C. Tynan, Executive Director of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA). She has been educating people for more than a decade on the protective role of the jury and the full rights and authority of jurors. Her educational workplaces special focus is on jurors' right to temper the law with mercy through jury nullification to deliver just verdicts.E151: Kirsten C. Tynan - Jury Nullification Revisited (Part 1 of 4)E151: Kirsten C. Tynan - Jury Nullification Revisited (Part 2 of 4)E151: Kirsten C. Tynan - Jury Nullification Revisited (Part 3 of 4)

What do an 18th Century printing press operator, an 80s hair metal band Britny Fox, and Big Tech Section 230 shenanigans have in common?  Besides all featuring in this episode, they all factor into the debate around free speech, seditious libel, and the 1st Amendment. John Peter Zenger was a newspaper printer in colonial New York during the 1730s. But when he started running stories about the corrupt Governor of the day (William Cosby) he found his free speech rights being assaulted by a petty tyrant who wanted abject submission to the Crown. The Zenger Trial would turn out to be a foundational element of the USA's 1st Amendment, and a lesson in resisting State censorship. In turn, this will tie into the topics of press freedom, the founding of the American Bill of rights, and the modern battles over Section 230 protections for social media. Join Smoke Filled Rooms as we present Chapter 1 of an ongoing, though intermittent series, dubbed 'The First Amendment Files'. IN SHOW ADS: Break the Cycle w/ Joshua Smith (Monday's & Thursdays at 730pm CNT) The Libertoonian  on Twitter (and make sure to use the hashtag Inktober2022 when sharing his work) Libertoonian Website SHOW DETAILS: HOST: Gregory Zink (@GregZesq) EMAIL: smokinggunpod@gmail.com WEBSITE: https://www.smokefilledrooms.net FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/smokefilledroomspodcast/ TWITTER: @SmokyRooms PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/smokefilledroomspodcast RSS FEED: https://feed.podbean.com/smokefilledrooms/feed.xml CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS: FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) CCF (Canadian Constitutional Foundation) SHOW REFERENCE NOTES: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/04/29/publics-satisfied-with-free-speech-ability-to-improve-living-standards-many-are-critical-of-institutions-politicians/  Indelible Ink by Richard Kluger https://history.nycourts.gov/case/crown-v-zenger/ https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1235/john-peter-zenger https://www.crf-usa.org/images/pdf/znger_ms.pdf https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2503&context=mlr https://law.jrank.org/pages/2344/John-Peter-Zenger-Trial-1735-Zenger-Verdict-s-Legal-Impact.html https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1017/seditious-libel https://history.nycourts.gov/case/people-v-croswell/ https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/freedom-of-the-press https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/04/10/the-fake-news-that-haunted-george-washington/  

Hur gör man för att undvika ett samhälle styrs av blind tro på lagtextens bokstav? Frilansskribenten Vincent Flink Amble-Naess berättar om juryräddningens viktiga roll i USA:s historia. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna.Hudsonflodens utlopp i Atlanten såg under 1700-talets första hälft inte mycket ut för världen. Ursprungsbefolkningen hade kallat platsen för manahahtán, platsen där bågarna spänns, men nu var de fördrivna. På ett skär i bukten skulle man 150 år senare låta resa en staty i ärggrön kopparplåt the Statue of Liberty men än så länge var sikten klar. Den som närmade sig platsen från havet kunde vid horisonten skönja konturerna av en mindre handelsstad, med tullhus, bodar och magasin. Namnet New York hade staden fått efter sin förste beskyddare, hertigen av York. I vår tid betraktas den inte sällan som världens mittpunkt, men än så länge var platsen inte mer än en obetydlig kolonialprovins i det brittiska imperiets utkant.När Högsta domstolens ledamöter sammanträdde i New Yorks stadshus den 4 augusti år 1735 var det därför knappast en internationell angelägenhet. Men bland lokalinvånarna rådde det stor uppståndelse. Fallet gällde tidningsmannen och typografen John Peter Zenger. I åratal hade han spridit rykten om att provinsens kungliga guvernör, William Cosby, hade missbrukat sitt ämbete och gjort sig skyldig till nepotism. Zenger hade retat gallfeber på myndigheterna, och nu stod han åtalad för uppvigling.I väntan på rättegång hade han fått tillbringa 8 månader i fängelse, men nu skulle han få upprättelse. I rättssalen argumenterade försvarsadvokaten i timmar. Slutledningarna var vattentäta, tycktes det, och bevisen var övertygande. Visst hade Zenger låtit trycka texterna, men guvernör Cosby var skyldig och rättvisan krävde hans avgång.När domaren tog till orda vände han emellertid på saken, och förklarade att advokatens resonemang var irrelevanta. Även om Cosby var skyldig hade Zenger ingen rätt att skriva om det. Också sanna anklagelser kunde nämligen klassas som uppvigling. Zengers granskningar hade undergrävt förtroendet för myndigheterna, och därigenom äventyrat den samhälleliga stabiliteten. Juryn mer eller mindre instruerades att finna den tilltalade skyldig. Advokaten var chockad. Av misstag hade han alltså råkat erkänna sin klients brott. Ett brott som kunde ge hans klient en livstid i fängelse, det vill säga: om myndigheterna inte valde att hänga honom.Åklagarsidan klappade händerna när domaren hade hållit sin utläggning. De oregerliga amerikanarna var satta på plats, och kolonisatörerna kunde pusta ut. Allting var avgjort, tycktes det. Men efter att juryns förman hade rest sig upp och meddelat sin samlade bedömning blev det knäpptyst i salen. Zenger befanns vara oskyldig till brottet, trots att hans ombud hade erkänt å hans vägnar.Jurymedlemmarna förstod naturligtvis att Zenger i lagens mening var skyldig. Ändå valde de att fria honom, eftersom han i moraliskt hänseende hade uppträtt oklanderligt, ja till och med berömvärt. Och de lyckades i sina föresatser. När Zenger dagen därpå lämnade fängelset genom huvudentrén var han en fri man. Segern firades med biffstek och bayerskt öl på the Black Horse Tavern. Kanonerna sköt salut till hans ära.Denna triumf för rättvisan hade varit otänkbar om det inte vore för det amerikanska jurysystemet, som har levt vidare in i våra dagar. Ur ett svenskt perspektiv kan det te sig underligt att en samling slumpmässigt utvalda individer utan juridisk utbildning tillåts avgöra utfallet i en rättegång, men för amerikanerna är processen en självklar del av demokratin. Så här går det till:Efter förhandlingen i rättssalen drar sig jurymedlemmarna tillbaka till ett separat konferensrum. De överläggningar som sedan påbörjas är belagda med sträng sekretess. Tidigt i processen utses därför en förman, som sköter kommunikationen utåt. I normalfallet kommuniceras endast huruvida den tilltalade har befunnits vara skyldig eller oskyldig till brottet. Varken domaren, åklagaren eller försvarsadvokaten har rätt att få reda på jurymedlemmarnas bevekelsegrunder. Ett fällande juryutslag kan i specialfall tillbakavisas av domaren, men ett friande kräver en formell överklagan, vilket inte alltid beviljas.Detta faktum gör det möjligt för juryn att låta en i lagens mening skyldig person gå fri från straff. Fenomenet kallas på engelska för jury nullification, eller juryräddning. Zengers fall är ett av de tidigaste kända exemplen.Insikten om att det ibland är vår plikt att frångå lagens bokstav är urgammal. Ett välkänt exempel är Jesus uppmaning i Lukasevangeliet, om att ta åsnan ur brunnen på sabbaten. Orden var inte menade att avskaffa vilodagen, vilket är viktigt att hålla i minnet. Tvärt om var undantaget tänkt att bekräfta regeln. Eller som det heter i Matteusevangeliet: Jag har inte kommit för att upphäva lagen, men för att fullborda den.Fariséerna och de skriftlärda hade naturligtvis sina invändningar, men faktum kvarstod: Tog man inte djuret ur brunnen, så drunknade det. Och inte nog med att bonden då förlorade sin åsna, kadavret skulle dessutom förorena vattnet vilket i den judeiska hettan kunde innebära en dödsdom. Sådana konsekvenser var oacceptabla. Sabbaten fick vänta.Alla tycks emellertid inte ha lärt sig sin läxa. Också våra dagars skriftlärda har nämligen sina invändningar. I modern tid fördöms juryräddningar av i stort sett samtliga av USA:s domare. Åtgärden innebär en form av självsvåld, menar man. Men på senare tid har tillvägagångssättet också lyfts fram som något positivt, inte minst av röster inom akademin.Forskarnas ställningstaganden motiveras inte sällan av antirasistiska resonemang. Enligt somliga är landets lagstiftning nämligen oproportionerligt sträng mot afroamerikaner och andra minoriteter. Dessutom har forskarna historien på sin sida. Det är tydligt att de som stiftade den amerikanska grundlagen avsåg att jurymedlemmarna skulle pröva saken inte enbart i juridiskt hänseende utan även i moraliskt.Under månaderna innan grundlagen ratificerades publicerades en skriftsamling the Federalist Papers där den föreslagna lagtexten avhandlades i detalj. Samlingen författades av politikerna och sedermera grundlagsfäderna Hamilton, Madison och Jay. I dessa texter beskrivs jurysystemet inte enbart som ett försvar mot tyranniska arvsmonarker utan även mot domare och folkvalda. John Adams, som var landets första vicepresident, skriver utförligt om saken i sin dagbok. Det är jurymannens plikt, skriver han, att fälla sitt omdöme i enlighet med sitt samvete också då detta står i strid med lagen.I förstone kan det tyckas underligt att juryn ska tillerkännas sådan makt. En lag är trots allt resultatet av en demokratisk process, och därför ett uttryck för folkviljan. Varför skulle en liten samling slumpmässigt utvalda ha mera rätt än hela befolkningen? En del av svaret står att finna i faktumet att lagstiftarna sällan kan förutse varje potentiell tillämpning. I särskilda fall riskerar denna omständighet att ge upphov till orättvisa domar. När en människa ställs inför det individuella fallet är det däremot lättare att göra en rättvis bedömning. Kanske fattar man sympati för den åtalade, som vid närmare påseende framstår som blott ett offer för omständigheter. Jurysystemet är alltså inte enbart ett skydd mot maktens illvilja, som i Zengers fall, utan även mot dess dumhet och brist på förutseende.Än idag kvarstår möjligheten till juryräddning i det amerikanska rättssystemet. Ibland händer det också att den tillgrips. Det är när bevisen är överväldigande och lagen är hopplöst tydlig; när saken tycks vara avgjord på förhand, och det enda som fattas är en ren formalitet. Då reser sig juryns förman från bänken, harklar sig och talar. Och i domstolens marmorsal hörs ekot av hans stämma, som en påminnelse om att folket har makten och inte tjänstemännen. Och det ekar i kongressbyggnaden, i försvarshögkvarteret och i presidentens vita hus. Och orden får väggarna att skälva:Vi finner den tilltalade oskyldig.Vincent Flink Amble-Naess

Freedom of the press in the United States is legally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, freedom of the press in the United States is subject to certain restrictions, such as defamation law, a lack of protection for whistleblowers, barriers to information access and constraints caused by public and government hostility to journalists. History. Thirteen Colonies. In the Thirteen Colonies before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the media was subject to a series of regulations. British authorities attempted to prohibit the publication and circulation of information of which they did not approve. One of the earliest cases concerning freedom of the press occurred in 1734. In a libel case against The New York Weekly Journal publisher John Peter Zenger by British governor William Cosby, Zenger was acquitted and the publication continued until 1751. At that time, there were only two newspapers in New York City and the second was not critical of Cosby's government. U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment permits information, ideas and opinions without interference, constraint or prosecution by the government. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. Freedom of the press in the United States is legally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, freedom of the press in the United States is subject to certain restrictions, such as defamation law, a lack of protection for whistleblowers, barriers to information access and constraints caused by public and government hostility to journalists. History. Thirteen Colonies. In the Thirteen Colonies before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the media was subject to a series of regulations. British authorities attempted to prohibit the publication and circulation of information of which they did not approve. One of the earliest cases concerning freedom of the press occurred in 1734. In a libel case against The New York Weekly Journal publisher John Peter Zenger by British governor William Cosby, Zenger was acquitted and the publication continued until 1751. At that time, there were only two newspapers in New York City and the second was not critical of Cosby's government. U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment permits information, ideas and opinions without interference, constraint or prosecution by the government. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

Internationally. Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. United States. The origins of U.S. defamation law pre-date the American Revolution; one famous 1734 case involving John Peter Zenger sowed the seed for the later establishment of truth as an absolute defense against libel charges. The outcome of the case is one of jury nullification, and not a case where the defense acquitted itself as a matter of law, as before the Zenger case defamation law had not provided the defense of truth. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to apply the First Amendment to libel cases involving media defendants. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v Sullivan dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice – that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later the Supreme Court held that statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true are protected from libel claims, as are statements of opinion relating to matters of public concern that do not contain a provably false factual connotation. Subsequent state and federal cases have addressed defamation law and the Internet. Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries. A comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander under United States law is difficult, as the definition differs between different states and is further affected by federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together, merging the concepts into a single defamation law. Civil defamation. Although laws vary by state, in the United States a defamation action typically requires that a plaintiff claiming defamation prove that the defendant: 1. made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; 2. shared the statement with a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); 3. if the defamatory matter is of public concern, acted in a manner which amounted at least to negligence on the part of the defendant; and 4. caused damages to the plaintiff. American writers and publishers are protected from foreign libel judgments not compliant with the US First Amendment, or libel tourism, by the SPEECH Act, which was passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010. It is based on the New York State 2008 Libel Terrorism Protection Act (also known as "Rachel's Law", after Rachel Ehrenfeld who initiated the state and federal laws). Both the New York state law and the federal law were passed unanimously. Defenses to defamation that may defeat a lawsuit, including possible dismissal before trial, include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism". Truth is always a defense. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

In the ongoing struggle between liberty and conformity, we have seen in the past year plus the idea that some people should be forced to just shut up. look, that's been going on for a while, but not with the seeming fervor that has come into play this time around. Now, San Diego County has waded in to the debate, announcing that from henceforth, medical misinformation is a “health crises.” That is to say that somebody, in this case the CDC, has the sole authority to decide what is valid information and what is not. In 1733 a German immigrant to the American Colonies, published copies of a newspaper to express his disagreement with the official information being promulgated by the new Colonial Governor. He was charged with libel, for expressing his opinion. And he would go down in our forgotten history as a symbol of free speech and press… No nation ancient or modern ever lost the liberty of freely speaking, writing, or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves. – John Peter Zenger, The New York Weekly Journal, 11/12/1733

5 sierpnia 1460 – Wojska polskie odbiły Malbork podczas wojny trzynastoletniej.5 sierpnia 1735 – John Peter Zenger został uniewinniony od zarzutów o zniesławienie.5 sierpnia 1772 – W Petersburgu podpisano trzy traktaty rozbiorowe ustalające granice zaboru.5 sierpnia 1864 – Na stokach warszawskiej Cytadeli stracono przywódców powstania styczniowego.5 sierpnia 1888 – Bertha Benz jako pierwsza przejechała automobilem ponad stukilometrowy dystans.5 sierpnia 1981 – Prezydent Ronald Reagan zwolnił z pracy 11 359 strajkujących kontrolerów lotów.5 sierpnia 2010 – W wyniku katastrofy w kopalni w Chile pod ziemią zostało uwięzionych 33 górników.

The John Peter Zenger case provided an early example of jury nullification, which means that a jury reaches a verdict of not guilty, despite overwhelming proof that the defendant committed a particular act, because the jury believes that the law making the act a crime is immoral or wrong. Center for Civic Education

Many Americans believe that the John Peter Zenger case not only established an important right of freedom of the press but also proved the importance of the jury as a check on arbitrary government. Center for Civic Education

Freedom of the press in the United States is legally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, freedom of the press in the United States is subject to certain restrictions, such as defamation law, a lack of protection for whistleblowers, barriers to information access and constraints caused by public and government hostility to journalists. History. Thirteen Colonies. In the Thirteen Colonies before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the media was subject to a series of regulations. British authorities attempted to prohibit the publication and circulation of information of which they did not approve. One of the earliest cases concerning freedom of the press occurred in 1734. In a libel case against The New York Weekly Journal publisher John Peter Zenger by British governor William Cosby, Zenger was acquitted, and the publication continued until 1751. At that time, there were only two newspapers in New York City and the second was not critical of Cosby's government. U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment permits information, ideas and opinions without interference, constraint, or prosecution by the government. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. Freedom of peaceful assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right or ability of people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their collective or shared ideas. The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political right and a civil liberty. The terms freedom of assembly and freedom of association may be used to distinguish between the freedom to assemble in public places and the freedom to join an association. Freedom of assembly is often used in the context of the right to protest, while freedom of association is used in the context of labor rights and in the Constitution of the United States is interpreted to mean both the freedom to assemble and the freedom to join an association. In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Although often overlooked in favor of other more famous freedoms, and sometimes taken for granted, many other civil liberties are enforceable against the government only by exercising this basic right. According to the Congressional Research Service, since the Constitution was written, the right of petition has expanded. It is no longer confined to demands for “a redress of grievances,” in any accurate meaning of these words, but comprehends demands for an exercise by the government of its powers in furtherance of the interest and prosperity of the petitioners and of their views on politically contentious matters. The right extends to the "approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies (which are both creatures of the legislature, and arms of the executive) and to courts, the third branch of Government. Certainly, the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition." --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

The Declaration of Independence's list of grievances includes the suppression of the right to a jury trial. Learn how the jury right gradually arose and developed over the centuries in England, and how it became a keystone to justice and liberty. Highlights include the trials of Quaker leader and founder of Pennsylvania William Penn in England and printer John Peter Zenger in New York. Learn how Patrick Henry's appeal to the jury in the Parsons Cause solidified the jury in American lore and launched Henry's career. Discover how England's oppression of the colonies consistently deprived the colonists of the right to a jury and why suppressing it is a key threat to unalienable rights.  The grievances also include shipping criminal defendants overseas to face hostile trials. With the expansion of the Vice Admiralty Courts and similar mechanisms, criminals defendants were uprooted from their communities and shipped to face justice before tribunals ready to convict. Understand how that too threatened justice and unalienable rights.  Discover how the Quebec Act governing Canada abolished representative government, the common law of England, and jury trials. Explore why the Quebec Act was considered a betrayal of the colonists and perceived to be a tremendous threat to the the First Principles of the rule of law, unalienable rights, limited government, and the Social Compact. The Intolerable Acts continue their rampage against the American colonies and trampling of American rights. Continue our deep dive of the American Revolution & the Declaration of Independence and its grievances. Further your learning about the First Principles of the rule of law, unalienable rights, limited government, the Social Compact, equality, and the right to alter or abolish oppressive government. Produced by Patriot Week - visit PatriotWeek.org, Judge Warren's book at www.AmericasSurvivalGuide.com, and the new daily video series, Save Our Republic! at Patriot Week's YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdq2k1-j0xlV2VIp8MRLmOg?user=patriotweek#g/u Also check out the upcoming Patrick Henry Awards at PatriotWeek.org featuring ABC's Bob Woodruff, a re-enactment of Patrick Henry's Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death! speech, an Abigail Adams re-enactor, and more! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/michael-warren9/support

Under British colonial rule in America, criticizing the government was known as seditious libel, and it was illegal. But in the case of John Peter Zenger, the jury was on his side. Center for Civic Education

In this short discussion, we talk about the impact of the John Peter Zenger- 1734 Zenger Trial. We provide a connection to current journalism long with the historical context of the trial.

Welcome back to another episode of Liberty Revealed, the show dedicated to revealing personal liberty to all who listen. I am your host, Mike Mahony, and today I want to talk to you about censorship.What exactly is censorship? Defining this term properly will help you decide if it is ever a good thing. Censorship is the coercive silencing of dissenting views by political authorities generally in order to protect an official orthodoxy or to prevent the spread of ideas not authorized by the powers that be. As Alberto Manguel writes in A History of Reading, censorship “is the corollary of all power, and the history of reading is lit by a seemingly endless line of censors’ bonfires.”It should be noted that censorship has been and continues to be a common feature of oppressive regimes. John Milton, whose Areopagitica (written in protest of the censorship of his writings on divorce) remains the most eloquent defense of the free press written in English, provided a history of censorship from 411 B.C., when the works of Protagoras were burned in Athens on the grounds that they taught agnosticism. In the Republic, Plato advocates censorship of poetry and music that fail to promote the state’s interests. This tradition has continued in modern times. Beginning in 1933, Josef Goebbels oversaw mass book burnings, which became a trademark of the Nazi regime. In the Soviet Union, an agency called Glavlit oversaw all printed publications, including even food labels, to prevent the dissemination of unacceptable material. Today, officials in China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other countries have implemented censorship of books, periodicals, television, radio, and the Internet to ensure that political dissent, religious heterodoxy, or sexually provocative material are not disseminated to the general public.The introduction of the printing press and the Protestant injunction for believers to read the Bible for themselves made censorship an increasingly important subject of debate in Reformation Europe. In 1559, the Catholic Church issued the first Index Liborum Prohibitorum, which lists books forbidden as dangerous to the faith; the Index was not eliminated until 1966. Protestant nations were no less censorious. Henry VIII ordered the burning of Reformation books prior to his own break with Rome, including English translations of the New Testament, and established the licensing requirement for publishing that Milton would protest a century later in Areopagitica.In the ensuing decades, the English common law gradually developed a principle of free expression that barred the government from engaging in “prior restraint” (i.e., the forcible prevention of publication). But no rule protected authors from punishment after publication. Thus, although William Blackstone explained in his Commentaries that the prohibition on prior restraints was of the essence to English liberty, there was no “freedom from censure for criminal matter when published.” Dissidents could print their views, but the threat of prosecution for “seditious libel” and other political crimes helped temper criticism of the government. In America, however, the famous 1735 acquittal of John Peter Zenger largely eliminated seditious libel as a threat to colonial printers. Prosecutions for the publication of indecent material did continue, however. The first book to be banned in the United States was John Cleland’s pornographic novel, Fanny Hill, or Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, which was prohibited in Boston in 1821 and, when republished in 1964, was again banned, leading to an important Supreme Court decision defining obscenity.Because the common law defined freedom of the press by the absence of prior restraints, the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the freedoms of press and speech, has been interpreted as an almost absolute prohibition on prior restraints. Some have argued that the 1st Amendment goes no further, whereas others contend that it goes further than common law and prohibits certain forms of post-publication punishment or other government actions intended to limit the dissemination of information. American courts have identified three broad categories of censorship other than prior restraint: (1) the punishment of those who produce material—such as obscenity or extraordinarily intimidating threats—which is determined not to qualify as “speech” or “press” as the terms were understood by the authors of the 1st Amendment, (2) the use of libel and slander to punish those who utter falsehoods or unflattering comments, and (3) the removal of books from public libraries.It is widely conceded that certain material is so obscene that it contains no ideas or expression worthy of constitutional protection. However, defining the word obscene has proven extremely difficult for courts because too broad a definition might well threaten the dissemination of provocative, but serious, material. In 1973, the Supreme Court defined obscenity as material that, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex, that portrays sex in a patently offensive way, and that lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This definition has proved difficult to apply, and in recent decades, governments in the United States have largely given up the efforts to ban pornography. Worse, it can be dangerous to declare that certain forms of expression are not protected forms of speech. Prohibitions of “hate speech,” or of expressive actions thought to be extraordinarily offensive, such as flag-burning, are similar in that they can often be justified on the grounds that such forms of expression communicate sentiments that are unworthy of legal protection. The dangers of such a rationale are evident in the area of sexual harassment laws, which in recent years have been expanded so as to intimidate some speakers or to prohibit some forms of expression that, whatever their merit, are clearly communicative and not obscene or threatening. In addition, this effort to define certain categories of expression as outside constitutional protections has spawned legal theories that seek to define certain categories of speech as deserving “lesser” constitutional protection. This regime of diminished protection prevails in the realm of commercial speech, defined to be speech that proposes a commercial transaction. Although the Constitution provides no warrant for such discrimination, the Supreme Court has found that commercial expression can be extensively regulated because it is not considered part of the political or cultural dialogue thought essential to democratic decision making. Likewise, campaign finance regulations, although often restricting the rights of individuals to express their political preferences, are frequently defended on the grounds that limiting the expressive opportunities of wealthy groups fosters broader democratic debate.Libel and slander laws have regularly been abused to stifle criticism of political authorities, but in the United States these efforts were severely curtailed by the 1964 Supreme Court decision New York Times v. Sullivan, which held that “public figures,” such as government officials or those who choose to partake in matters of public concern, can only rarely prevail in libel cases. Even publication of obviously false and obscene material about a public figure has been held protected by the 1st Amendment, as when pornographer Larry Flynt successfully defended his right to publish a counterfeit interview suggesting that minister Jerry Falwell had lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. Although public figures can virtually never succeed when suing media for such libel in the United States, European countries, particularly England, do not prohibit such suits. As a result, criticism of political figures in England is still often hampered. Worse, because publications produced in the United States are easily available in England, public figures who have been criticized have brought suit against American writers in English courts and recovered, although these suits would be constitutionally barred under American law. This “libel tourism” has become a matter of increasing concern in the age of the Internet.One common source of debate over freedom of expression in the United States involves the removal of controversial books from public libraries and libraries in public schools. Although not strictly a form of censorship—because the publications remain legal and available elsewhere— such attempts to prevent reading are common and are monitored by the American Library Association’s Office of Intellectual Freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that such removals are prohibited by the 1st Amendment, but in Board of Education v. Pico, a plurality of justices held that while school boards have broad discretion to choose what books are appropriate for curriculum or classroom use, and to choose what books may be placed in a library, they may not remove books that are already in the library on the basis of the ideas contained in those books or in an attempt to prescribe orthodox opinions.To me, it would appear that the vast majority of censorship is bad. I feel like going down the path of allowing censorship is an extremely slippery slope that leads to some very dangerous situations. If you allow censorship of things you define as bad, what stops others from defining as bad things you see as good? How do we determine what does and does not get censored? Perhaps we should use similar standards to our libel and slander laws? Many look towards protecting children as a good reason to censor things. Marjorie Heins does not argue that unfettered access to all forms of expression would benefit children. Even as some studies have claimed that violent images may help create violent children, Heins cautions against simplistic conclusions. “When you look at it, the definitions of violent entertainment are all over the lot,” she said. “There’s very little attempt to put violence in context, so it would be impossible to frame any kind of censorship legislation that would pinpoint what the harm is.”Rather than “intellectual protectionism,” Heins advocates media literacy programs and sexuality education to help children cope with their surroundings. She also questions the efficacy of “forbidden speech zones,” which may attract children to the very material that adults would deny them. Better, she said, to teach children to make the best choices than to pretend those choices don’t exist.“Kids are going to make some choices about culture, and those choices can be influenced by their interaction with their parents and their teachers,” said Heins. “It’s sort of similar to food. I think when your kid is a baby you can feed them good healthy baby food. Once they get into nursery school, they’re going to start learning about the other temptations, so the most parents can do is to try to continue to make some rules and try to explain why they’re the right rules.”Heins concludes that concerns about violence, language, and sex “have more to do with socializing youth than with the objective proof of psychological harm.” Censorship on behalf of children, she believes, is really done for the adults who demand it.I have to agree with Heins. We don’t censor to protect children, we do it because adults demand it. I say we should handle this very carefully. We should consider that the vast majority of censorship is simply wrong and should not be allowed. Tell me your thoughts on this by leaving a voicemail on the Yogi’s Podcast Network hotline at (657) 529-2218.That’s it for this episode of Liberty Revealed. .If you like what you’ve heard, please rate us 5 stars on Apple Podcasts and Google Play. If you’d like to learn more about personal liberty, grab your free copy of my book “Liberty Revealed” by heading over to http://yogispodcastnetwork.com/libertyrevealed. Until next time...stay free!

Early colonists try to balance religious liberty with established state churches. John Peter Zenger goes to trial and suffers a pyrrhic loss. The murky origins of the free speech clause. James Madison slyly tweaks proposals from the state ratifying conventions. Federalists and Democratic-Republicans battle over the Sedition Act in the shadow of the new First Amendment. Thomas Jefferson proposes a radical fix that nearly undoes the Constitution.

Episode 24: - The importance of the freedom of the press in the colonies - Details of the trial and how it had both short and long-term impacts on the colonies - Various precedents established and how they played a role in impacting the founding fathers ----- Please be sure to subscribe and tell your friends! Leave us a review on iTunes and reach out to us on social media! Twitter: @ateachershist Facebook: A Teacher's History of the United States Podcast: https://www.facebook.com/ateachershist/ Website: www.ateachershistory.com Music from: http://www.bensound.com/royalty-free-music Artwork by Brad Ziegler

Ron and Heather talk with Harvard's Nicco Mele and respond to President Trump's CNN and Mika Brzezinski tweets, discuss the media's role in the first 100 days of this administration and look at historical parallels, from the John Peter Zenger trial to Richard Nixon.

Your Are There-The Trial Of John Peter Zenger 2-6-49  http://oldtimeradiodvd.com

A long, long time ago in New York -- in the 1730s, back when the city was a holding of the British, with a little over 10,000 inhabitants -- a German printer named John Peter Zenger decided to print a four-page newspaper called the New York Weekly Journal.  This is pretty remarkable in itself, as there was only one other newspaper in town called the New York Gazette, an organ of the British crown and the governor of the colony. (Equally remarkable: Benjamin Franklin almost worked there!)  But Zenger's paper would call to question the actions of that governor, a virtual despot named William Cosby, and in so doing, set in motion an historic trial that marked a triumph for liberty and modern democratic rights, including freedom of the press and the power of jury nullification. This entire story takes place in lower Manhattan, and most of it on a couple floors of old New York City Hall at Wall Street and Nassau Street. Many years later, this spot would see the first American government and the inauguration of George Washington. But many could argue that the trial that occurs here on August 4, 1735, is equally important to the causes of democracy and a free press. And somehow, we manage to fit Kim Kardashian into this. www.boweryboyspodcast.com Support the show.

You Are There presents " February 6, 1949. CBS net. "The Trial Of Peter Zenger". Sustaining. The events of August 4, 1735. Andrew Hamilton's brilliant defense of John Peter Zenger creates a free press in America. Walter Hampden, John Daly, Robert Lewis Shayon (writer, producer, director), Quincy Howe, Don Hollenbeck, Irve Tunick (writer), Inge Adams, D. A. Clark Smith, Bernard Lenrow, Richard Newton, Guy Sorel, Bert Cowlan, Van Marlowe.