Hamilton equates Zenger 's defense with "the cause of liberty" in an attempt to stir the jury’s sense of justice. By stating that "a bad precedent in one government is soon set up for an authority in another," he makes it clear that what the jurors choose here today (to support freedom of speech or deny it) could impact the laws of all the states. This is further supported by Hamilton stating "it may, in its consequence, affect every freeman that lives under a British government on the main [land] of America." He also tells the jurors that should they protect Zenger 's freedoms, they would have "the love and esteem of your fellow citizens...every man who prefers freedom to a life of slavery will bless and honor you, as men who have baffled …show more content…
In reality, Hamilton 's case is not about facts, but about stirring emotions, similar to Samuel L. Jackson in the 1996 movie "A Time to Kill." Although the facts are right in front of the jury (according to the law at that time, Zenger WAS guilty of criticizing the government, without a doubt), Hamilton is able to stir enough emotion and sense of pride, and inflame the jurors’ desire to do "what is right," that they inevitably find Zenger innocent. The truth wins out; no matter how defamatory, if it can be proved true then it is not libel. Even when speaking or writing about the government. What does Hamilton seem to think is the greatest threat to liberty? Hamilton seems to think that oppression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press is the greatest threat to liberty. And history has proven him correct. When freedom of speech and freedom of the press are stifled, the ability of the people to communicate about and discuss urgent problems is stifled. This, in turn, stifles the ability of the people to correct said problems. A now classic example of the atrocities possible when these liberties are lost is Nazi Germany. Joseph Goebbels ' Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda controlled all media, suppressing anti-government information while promoting propaganda. Journalists who crossed the Propaganda Ministry were routinely imprisoned or shot as traitors, and a network of police and spies kept speech, the press, and even movies in
It was 1735 when the trial started. After being removed from jail for this day, Zenger went out with John Chambers, a young man with little law experience who was also on Cosby's side. After a juror entry problem was addressed and fixed, the attorney general proceeded to describe Zenger as: '... a frequent printer and publisher of false news and seditious
On November 2, 1734 an arrest warrant was issued for John Peter Zenger on the account of him publicly publishing a libel and misrepresentation of the Governor in his New York Weekly Journals. In attendance of the issue of the warrant was the Governor William Cosby, Captain General and Governor in Chief, Mr. Harrison, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Livingston, Chief Justice Delancey, Mr. Cortland, Mr, Horsmanden, and Mr. Lane. The warrant calls for the Sheriff of New York City to find and arrest Mr. Zenger. His reasoning in the warrant for arresting him is because it “tending to raise factions and tumults among the people of this Province, inflaming their minds with contempt of His Majesty’s government, and greatly disturbing the peace thereof” Essentially
I believe that Zabin thought these events were significant because we learn that mass paranoia can cause a city to go into a state of chaos and also that these events will eventually help evolve the justice system that we have today. It evolves the justice system because in 1741 the court of law did not have a defense attorney so the accused did not stand a chance at a fair trial. Also the priority of the case was placed on solely the defendants testimony, even when the evidence was proven false. Lastly the judge had the final say in what evidenced was used and what evidence was discarded.
Hamilton started his injection into the American-British conflict with nothing more than well timed and well versed Pamphlets. An Author by the name of Hendrickson wrote "A full vindication of the measures of Congress" in 1774, and "The Farmer Refuted" in 1775, the latter being an answer to a slanderous attack by a clergyman, in February 1775. These two pieces contributed largely to George Washington taking Hamilton on as a writing aide two years later. We also see the light shed on a man becoming a rebel who originally didn 't intend to be one, a man "who remained conservative at heart" (Hendrickson 241). The British constitution had made it a man’s right to be taxed only by members of a legislature that man had voted for that was either the House of Commons or the colonial assemblies overseas.
Through his words, he expresses his opinion that we, as Americans, are not defending our rights to freedom of speech. In his opening sentence, he demonstrates that Americans do not value political freedom as a necessity, but rather a noble ideal. Throughout his entire work, he comes back to this idea and continues to support it with his words.
This could be done during war or peace time. The Sedition Act severely restricted freedom of speech and of the press. People who printed or helped print or disseminate written material against the government, congress or the president could be prosecuted. People who spoke against these entities could also be prosecuted even if it was just their opinion. Madison realized that freedom-loving people can easily be persuaded to voluntarily part with liberties they would otherwise consider indispensable when they feared foreign attacks or war (Watkins).
Debs highlighted how the Sedition Act attempted to suppress free speech and was an assault upon democracy itself, making him believe that its enforcement violated individual liberties. Further, Debs believed the Act violated constitutional provisions as it threatened fundamental elements of democratic government. His statement serves as an excellent critic against the unfair nature of the Sedition
The elaborate racial politics of Ernest J. Gaines’s book, A Lesson Before Dying give insight and reason as to why certain people of different ethnicities are treated as such. The racial politics in A Lesson Before Dying are more intricate with people of mixed race factored in. The hatred for African Americans by white people runs very deep in this novel, but people of mixed race complicate this system because those of mixed race are both face racial prejudice while maintaining a superior attitude towards African Americans. White people are politically, economically, and socially privileged and continue to believe that they have racial superiority in this novel.
The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.
While standing in front of a judge Appleton state “But it occurs to me that there’s a bigger issue here today than whether I’m a Communist… Fact is, I’ve never been a man of great conviction. I never saw the percentage in it and quite frankly I suppose… lack of courage” It came to him that he wasn’t only representing himself, he was representing Luke Trimble and everyone in the town of Lawson. “You know I think he’d probably tell you the America represented in this room is not the America he died defending. I think he’d tell you your America is bitter and cruel and small. I know for a fact that his America was big, bigger than you can imagine with a wide open heart where every person has a voice even if you don’t like what they have to say.”
Hamilton claims thatmost people believe freedom is about the capacity to have something, or to do something as one pleases, it is the freedom to make choices as per will, and to therefore act on those choices that consequently enforces the link between the individual to do x as he/she pleases, giving them the capacity and power of freedom (Hamilton, 2015). He explains further that people with such freedom have the capacity to join institutions in order to participate and overcome dominance. In the previous chapters (especially in Chapter 3), Hamilton expresses his notions on how society may be free from domination whereby domination is a form of oppression imposed by the state (Hamilton, 2015). Not in the extremity context of ancient slavery,
With the audience targeted at the supreme court and the general good of everyone, Timothy’s strategies were far more effective than James Madison. In Timothy Pickering Upholds the Repressive Laws, Pickering uses strong vocab and tone words to describe his disgust towards the foreigners and his passion for the Alien and Sedition Act. He describes foreigners as “pest of society” and “disturbers of order and tranquility.” He uses words like “malicious falsehoods” and “defamation” to describe their actions towards the government. He also compares the people who believe the people who believe the act goes against the Bill of Rights with “knocking down the first person we meet” , then excusing ourselves from punishment because we are “free agents.”
Because of many of his radical views, he gained a lot of opposition in both the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties, and was forced to resign, yet still remained popular, with a greatly valued opinion (Brookhiser). Hamilton then lost his firstborn son (Phillip) in a duel when Phillip challenged George Eacker to uphold his father’s honor. And yet Hamilton refused to remain quiet and openly opposed Aaron Burr in the election of 1800, and worked against Burr again when the Vice President ran for New York governorship. In an attempt to heal his wounded pride, Aaron Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel, and the discredited Alexander Hamilton died the day after. (Foner).
In the second chapter of his essay, On Liberty, Mill passionately defends his doctrine of freedom of expression in the light of three important and concrete points. These are namely human fallibility, tolerance and the search for truth. Most interestingly, Mill sets the tone of his defence of free thought and discussion in line with the first chapter. Liberty of the press from the onset was envisioned as a right that would secure against corrupt and tyrannical rulers. But today, and
Introduction No known society anyplace has ever adopted a standard of entirely absolute free speech. As indicated by nearly all free speech scholars, freedom of speech has been understood to have limits. Indeed, even in today’s liberal democracies there is no idea of unconditional freedom of speech. All right to speak freely speech scholars and philosophers, except very few in the United States, emphasize that freedom of speech is not absolute, neither in theory, nor in practice . Although they all agree on the significance of free speech for finding reality, fostering individual self-fulfillment and self-realization and maintaining democracy, they also argue that words can wound and believe that unlimited freedom of speech might prove