1
results found in
27 ms
Page 1
of 1
[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.
Similar Items
-
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.
-
Title: [1822 July 21 Compleat. Code]Description: 1822 July 21 Compleat. Code 55 or 1. Of private defamation the evil is manifest: but under it lies unreceived good. 1 Defamation imputation false and mendacious effects of the 1 st. order are less evil than where it is true: a man suffers from the imputation, where groundless than when true. 2. The effect of the 2 d. 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 would find it more convenient to impute guilt where it existed when where it did not. 56 or 2. Note that currency knowingly given to imputations known to be groundless if 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 supposed for the more effectual suppositions 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, though of course will be the marks of uneasiness and the desire to effect suppression and excite vengeance. 59 or 5. Vexation in case of not guiltiness are 1.Fear of loss of reputation 2. Expence of time and labour in calling on the calumniator for proofs. 3. D o., by eventual defence, by a counter argument, with or without counter evidence. For comfort, consciousness of innocence: thence assurances 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 assurances of ultimate condemnation.
-
Title: [1818 June 18 Parl. Reform Bill]Description: 1818 June 18 Parl. Reform Bill Abregé VIII Penal Securities 4 Opposite in one point of view /in its own nature/, but alike capable of being in its ulterior effects productive of the evil in question, viz. Miselection is the false and deceptious magnification: to /on a particular score specified or individualized: viz. when to the person in question is ascribed some individual act which if done by him would have been meritorious but where to either was wholly […?] or was an act in which he had no part. To/ the individual thus unduly characterized /of whose character the false description is given/, no injury, it is true, is done: but to the public in the first place, and in the next place to the more worthy rival the injury done in this case is exactly as great, as in the case of defamation. If when criminal consciousness has place, the one ought to be punished, neither ought /should/ the other, where the falshood has for its effect or intent[?] /design/ the production of public evil in this shape, go unpunished. On this occasion as on others carefully distinguished from defamation ought vituperation to be: by defamation misconduct either in an individual shape or at any rate in a specific shape as designated by the name of such crime or crimes[?] or some action by which the agent is rendered an object of general contempt or hatred, is imputed. By vituperation no such particular imputation is conveyed. A sentiment of […?] or disapprobation being expressed, but without any specific ground for it, whatsoever evil, if any may be the result is scarcely more apt to attach upon the individual by whom it is uttered /levelled/. Opposite to ungrounded vituperation is ungrounded eulogy or laudation. Of each the force and tendency may be /is capable of being/ counteracted by the other: they do not, either of them on this occasion any more than on any other appear to present a demand for penal visitation. Be it what it may, punishment where needless is much worse than useless.
1
results found.
Page 1
of 1