038-028.xml

Title: [[xxxviii. 28] 1822 July 21]

Description: [xxxviii. 28]

1822 July 21

Constitut. Code Rationale

Securities

Moral Counterforce

Public Opinion Tribunal

Evidence and Comments

? Defamation no grounds

for suppression

55 or 1. Of private defamation the evil is manifest: but under it lies unperceived good.

1. Defamation imputation false and mendacious effects of the 1st. order are less evil than where it is true: a man suffers less from the imputation, when groundless than when true.

2. The effect of the 2d. order are all good: viz. danger and belief of danger on the part of men under temptation to do the evil thus falsely imputed.

What no one can fail to see is that by being guilty a man is more exposed to the imputation than if not guilty

Inducements equal in both cases, no defamer but could find it more convenient to impute guilt where it existed than where it did not.

56 or 2. Note that currency knowingly given to imputations known to be groundless is justifiable: or antipathy to the imputer ill grounded: or the punishing of him, on sufficient proof, improper.

57 or 3. All that is meant is imputations, grounded and ungrounded together, ought not to be suppressed for the more effectual suppression of ungrounded ones.

The Public Tribunal should not be suppressed for the mere suppression of the false information conveyed to it.

58 or 4. Suffering being greater where a man is guilty than where not, stronger of course will be the marks of uneasiness and the desire to effect suppression and exercise vengeance.

59 or 5. Vexation in case of non-guiltiness are

1. Fear of loss of reputation.

2. Expence of time and labour in calling on the calumniator for proofs.

3. Do. by eventual defence, by a counter argument, with or without counter evidence.

For comfort, consciousness of innocence: thence assurance of ultimate acquittal.

60 or 6. Vexation in case of guiltiness.

1. Fear of loss of reputation much greater.

2. Expence of time and labour in the endeavour to exhibit counter argument with or without counter evidence, accompanied with fainter hope, or saved by despair of success.

Discomfort, consciousness of guilt: thence assurance of ultimate condemnation.

JB_160_366.xml

Title: [[clx. 366] 1822 July 9 Constitut]

Description: [clx. 366]

1822 July 9

Constitut. Code Rationale

Securities

Public Opinion Tribunal

Defamation no

ground for suppressing

it or depriving it of Evidence

Add Suppression of true instruction by the suppression of every thing obtainable in the character /[...?]/ of former times

? Diffusion of unjust defamation no sufficient reason for diminishing the censorial power of the Public Opinion Tribunal by restrictions on the press.

In the case of private defamation the mischief stares every one in the face. But along with it is mixt much good and to this good it is not customary for [...?] /men/ to appear sensible /men do not in general seem sensible/

To take the strongest case - the case in which if in any the evil would appear /be/ pure - the case where the misconduct imputed is by the imputer known not to have had place: the imputation in a word known to be /have been/ knowingly and wilfully false Here the effects of the first order, the uneasiness experienced by the individual to whom the conduct /misconduct/ is imputed, are evil: the effects of the 2d order, the apprehension excited in other persons at large - the apprehension of being made sufferers by similar [...?] from the same or other sources, are also evil But by the contemplation of the evil suffered in these two ways by groundless imputation, the attention of men is directed to and the more firmly fixed upon the like suffering as being more or less likely to be produced by true imputations: and, in this way accordingly addition is made to these fears - fears of punishment at the hands of the Public Opinion Tribunal - by which misconduct in general misconduct in most of its shapes is repressed: for that which is too obvious and too certain and too obvious to pass unnoticed is that by being guilty of misconduct in any shape a man is in a greater degree exposed to disrepute in respect of it than he would be if innocent. A man if he knew of an article of misconduct of which his intended victim had been really guilty proofs of his guilt more or less satisfactory being in existence would never think of preferring a false /ungrounded/ accusation in any shape to that same well grounded.

Not that currency knowingly allowed to false and unjust imputation are in any degree as such conducive and necessary to the repression of the misconduct that would have had place had the imputation been well grounded

Not that the antipathy against inventor and common circulator of such false imputation is not well grounded: not that they ought not to be subjected to legal punishment in so far as sufficient proof can be obtained.

All that is meant is - that all imputations grounded and ungrounded together ought to be suppressed without distinction, for the more effectual suppression of ungrounded ones. The Public-Opinion Tribunal with its useful effects ought not to be suppressed for the single benefit of more effectually preventing the pernicious ones.

131-181.xml

Title: [1820 Apr. 19 Defence ag. Ed. Review]

Description: 1820 Apr. 19

Defence ag. Ed. Review

§. Reviewers Devices

1

1

N.B. Object of personalities adverse as polemical[?] it be were[?] the adversary and thence his wish[?] with those effusions of which in the higher degrees hatred and contempt are the appellatives

§. Polemical Devices employed by /of/ the Reviewer.

These present themselves as capable of being arranged under the following heads. For the bringing of these together to view the following heads may serve.

1. Siopena[?] (☞ Put instead of the term employed in the Relation[?] books) Maintaining a profound silence on the principal topics of the controversy

2. Employing Ungrounded imputations – employing imputations in support of which no ground whatsoever good or bad, are brought to view. Note that in the instance in question the imputation whether well grounded or groundless is irrelevant. In the catalogue of fallacies it belongs to the head of Personalities

adverse

In the present instance these are 1. Bad style in writing. 2. Inconsistency viz of the opinions expressed on this occasion with opinions expressed on the same subject by the author on former occasions

3. Ostentation /Display/ of feigned tenderness towards the adversary. EG have too much sympathy /regard/ for his feelings to expose them to the suffering that would befall them if to make our part good against him we were to hold up in full view all the absurdities advanced by him.

In speaking of feigned tenderness, I see no reason for contesting either the existence of the generous disposition in question on the part of the Reviewer, or still less the fact that it is among my own honours and good fortune to be in the number of the objects of it. All I mean to give to understand is – that whatever may have been or may be the occasions on which exercise has been or will be /is about to be/ given to it, the present occasion does not appear to be /present itself as/ of the number of those on which it has been manifested. On the contrary on the present occasion, the object is to convey an ungrounded imputation

+ ☞ Insert here the denomination in Fallacies, and opposite it Personalities favourable