On the History (and abuse) of “Free Speech” and “Liberty of the Press”

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2020
5,407
4,503
1,938
Back in the days when the internet was new and serious people believed it could transform and revitalize democracy, Wired Magazine wrote a long article arguing that the true spiritual father of the internet was Thomas Paine. If ever there was a man of the people who embodied the revolutionary Enlightenment spirit of “Free Speech” and “Freedom of the Press” in a way applicable to today’s wide open social media, it would be Thomas Paine.

Were he alive today Paine would be an internet polemicist, not an Establishment journalist. Though he died in 1809, with little public influence and less money, he was almost until the end still writing and being published in a few small newspapers, with valuable things to say.

This little piece, written against unscrupulous attacks on Thomas Jefferson by many Federalist newspapers, shows clear thinking in that early era, when already shameless hacks hid behind the term “Liberty of the Press” to poison and derail honest discussion of differences among citizens:



The writer of this remembers a remark made to him by Mr. Jefferson concerning the English newspapers, which at that time, 1787, while Mr. Jefferson was Minister at Paris, were most vulgarly abusive. The remark applies with equal force to the Federal papers of America.

The remark was, that “the licentiousness of the press produces the same effect as the restraint of the press was intended to do, if the restraint was to prevent things being told, and the licentiousness of the press prevents things being believed when they are told."…

Whoever has made observation on the characters of nations will find it generally true that the manners of a nation, or of a party, can be better ascertained from the character of its press than from any other public circumstance. If its press is licentious, its manners are not good. Nobody believes a common liar, or a common defamer.

Nothing is more common with printers, especially of newspapers, than the continual cry of the Liberty of the Press, as if because they are printers they are to have more privileges than other people. As the term Liberty of the Press is adopted in this country without being understood, I will state the origin of it, and show what it means. The term comes from England, and the case was as follows:

Prior to what is in England called the Revolution, which was in 1688, no work could be published in that country without first obtaining the permission of an officer appointed by the government for inspecting works intended for publication. The same was the case in France, except that in France there were forty who were called Censors, and in England there was but one, called Imprimateur.

At the Revolution, the office of Imprimateur was abolished, and as works could then be published without first obtaining the permission of the government officer, the press was, in consequence of that abolition, said to be free, and it was from this circumstance that the term Liberty of the Press arose. The press, which is a tongue to the eye, was then put exactly in the case of the human tongue.

A man does not ask liberty before hand to say something he has a mind to say, but he becomes answerable afterwards for the atrocities he may utter. In like manner, if a man makes the press utter atrocious things, he becomes as answerable for them as if he had uttered them by word of mouth. Mr. Jefferson has said in his inaugural speech, that “error of opinion might be tolerated, when reason was left free to combat it.” This is sound philosophy in cases of error. But there is a difference between error and licentiousness….

THOMAS PAINE. October 19, 1806, writing in The American Citizen
 
Back in the days when the internet was new and serious people believed it could transform and revitalize democracy, Wired Magazine wrote a long article arguing that the true spiritual father of the internet was Thomas Paine. If ever there was a man of the people who embodied the revolutionary Enlightenment spirit of “Free Speech” and “Freedom of the Press” in a way applicable to today’s wide open social media, it would be Thomas Paine.

Were he alive today Paine would be an internet polemicist, not an Establishment journalist. Though he died in 1809, with little public influence and less money, he was almost until the end still writing and being published in a few small newspapers, with valuable things to say.

This little piece, written against unscrupulous attacks on Thomas Jefferson by many Federalist newspapers, shows clear thinking in that early era, when already shameless hacks hid behind the term “Liberty of the Press” to poison and derail honest discussion of differences among citizens:



The writer of this remembers a remark made to him by Mr. Jefferson concerning the English newspapers, which at that time, 1787, while Mr. Jefferson was Minister at Paris, were most vulgarly abusive. The remark applies with equal force to the Federal papers of America.

The remark was, that “the licentiousness of the press produces the same effect as the restraint of the press was intended to do, if the restraint was to prevent things being told, and the licentiousness of the press prevents things being believed when they are told."…

Whoever has made observation on the characters of nations will find it generally true that the manners of a nation, or of a party, can be better ascertained from the character of its press than from any other public circumstance. If its press is licentious, its manners are not good. Nobody believes a common liar, or a common defamer.

Nothing is more common with printers, especially of newspapers, than the continual cry of the Liberty of the Press, as if because they are printers they are to have more privileges than other people. As the term Liberty of the Press is adopted in this country without being understood, I will state the origin of it, and show what it means. The term comes from England, and the case was as follows:

Prior to what is in England called the Revolution, which was in 1688, no work could be published in that country without first obtaining the permission of an officer appointed by the government for inspecting works intended for publication. The same was the case in France, except that in France there were forty who were called Censors, and in England there was but one, called Imprimateur.

At the Revolution, the office of Imprimateur was abolished, and as works could then be published without first obtaining the permission of the government officer, the press was, in consequence of that abolition, said to be free, and it was from this circumstance that the term Liberty of the Press arose. The press, which is a tongue to the eye, was then put exactly in the case of the human tongue.

A man does not ask liberty before hand to say something he has a mind to say, but he becomes answerable afterwards for the atrocities he may utter. In like manner, if a man makes the press utter atrocious things, he becomes as answerable for them as if he had uttered them by word of mouth. Mr. Jefferson has said in his inaugural speech, that “error of opinion might be tolerated, when reason was left free to combat it.” This is sound philosophy in cases of error. But there is a difference between error and licentiousness….

THOMAS PAINE. October 19, 1806, writing in The American Citizen
The First Amendment Protects All Speech

The First Amendment Protects All Speech​

Especially if you don't like it.​

 
Back in the days when the internet was new and serious people believed it could transform and revitalize democracy, Wired Magazine wrote a long article arguing that the true spiritual father of the internet was Thomas Paine. If ever there was a man of the people who embodied the revolutionary Enlightenment spirit of “Free Speech” and “Freedom of the Press” in a way applicable to today’s wide open social media, it would be Thomas Paine.

Were he alive today Paine would be an internet polemicist, not an Establishment journalist. Though he died in 1809, with little public influence and less money, he was almost until the end still writing and being published in a few small newspapers, with valuable things to say.

This little piece, written against unscrupulous attacks on Thomas Jefferson by many Federalist newspapers, shows clear thinking in that early era, when already shameless hacks hid behind the term “Liberty of the Press” to poison and derail honest discussion of differences among citizens:



The writer of this remembers a remark made to him by Mr. Jefferson concerning the English newspapers, which at that time, 1787, while Mr. Jefferson was Minister at Paris, were most vulgarly abusive. The remark applies with equal force to the Federal papers of America.

The remark was, that “the licentiousness of the press produces the same effect as the restraint of the press was intended to do, if the restraint was to prevent things being told, and the licentiousness of the press prevents things being believed when they are told."…

Whoever has made observation on the characters of nations will find it generally true that the manners of a nation, or of a party, can be better ascertained from the character of its press than from any other public circumstance. If its press is licentious, its manners are not good. Nobody believes a common liar, or a common defamer.

Nothing is more common with printers, especially of newspapers, than the continual cry of the Liberty of the Press, as if because they are printers they are to have more privileges than other people. As the term Liberty of the Press is adopted in this country without being understood, I will state the origin of it, and show what it means. The term comes from England, and the case was as follows:

Prior to what is in England called the Revolution, which was in 1688, no work could be published in that country without first obtaining the permission of an officer appointed by the government for inspecting works intended for publication. The same was the case in France, except that in France there were forty who were called Censors, and in England there was but one, called Imprimateur.

At the Revolution, the office of Imprimateur was abolished, and as works could then be published without first obtaining the permission of the government officer, the press was, in consequence of that abolition, said to be free, and it was from this circumstance that the term Liberty of the Press arose. The press, which is a tongue to the eye, was then put exactly in the case of the human tongue.

A man does not ask liberty before hand to say something he has a mind to say, but he becomes answerable afterwards for the atrocities he may utter. In like manner, if a man makes the press utter atrocious things, he becomes as answerable for them as if he had uttered them by word of mouth. Mr. Jefferson has said in his inaugural speech, that “error of opinion might be tolerated, when reason was left free to combat it.” This is sound philosophy in cases of error. But there is a difference between error and licentiousness….

THOMAS PAINE. October 19, 1806, writing in The American Citizen
I can't even go to a "licentiousness," in Wikipedia.

It redirects to;

"Lascivious behavior is sexual behavior or conduct that is considered crude and offensive, or contrary to local moral or other standards of appropriate behavior. In this sense "lascivious" is similar in meaning to "lewd", "indecent", "lecherous", "unchaste", "licentious" or "libidinous". "

No one has a problem with porn being blocked from the press and the internet.

:rolleyes:



Stop trying to equate free and open debate, with porn. That is not what the founders were talking about.
 
1806 words don't always adhere to 2022 definitions. I think it's safe to say that his intent was "There is a difference between an error, and deliberate, provocative offense."

Paine concludes with:
Some lawyers in defending their clients (for the generality of lawyers like Swiss soldiers will fight on either side) have often given their opinion of what they defined the liberty of the press to be. One said it was this, another said it was that, and so on, according to the case they were pleading. Now these men ought to have known that the term, liberty of the press arose from a FACT, the abolition of the office of Imprimateur, and that opinion has nothing to do in the case. The term refers to the fact of printing free from prior restraint, and not at all to the matter printed whether good or bad. The public at large, or in case of prosecution, a jury of the country will be judges of the matter.

COMMON SENSE.
His point was not about porn at all; he was saying that 'freedom of the press' means that in America, there should be no government agency prohibiting anyone from printing what they wish. However, that does not offer the printer carte blanche to print anything they want without reprisal; they can still be criticized or arrested for it if justified.

 
Excellent point, and thanks for linking to the original article, Pellinore.

Here is a link to the etymology of the word, which ironically originates from a Latin root for “freedom,” and indeed also had a meaning connected with the modern sense of having a “license” to do something: licentious | Etymology, origin and meaning of licentious by etymonline

I think Paine largely used “licentiousness” in the sense of such criticism being wanton and immoral, degraded and in violation of reason. In those days the conservative and religious authorities in England (and ever more in the U.S. after the French Revolution) used the same term as an epithet against Paine himself.
 
Last edited:
1806 words don't always adhere to 2022 definitions. I think it's safe to say that his intent was "There is a difference between an error, and deliberate, provocative offense."

Paine concludes with:

His point was not about porn at all; he was saying that 'freedom of the press' means that in America, there should be no government agency prohibiting anyone from printing what they wish. However, that does not offer the printer carte blanche to print anything they want without reprisal; they can still be criticized or arrested for it if justified.

Yeah, sorta like what happened with those Catholic boys in Washinton DC who were slandered by the Washinton Compost and MSNBC.


The Washington Post on Friday agreed to settle a monster $250 million lawsuit filed by Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann over its botched coverage of his 2019 encounter with a Native American elder. Sandmann declared the victory in a tweet on his 18th birthday. It’s unclear how much the newspaper settled for.

Washington Post settles $250M suit with Covington teen ...


nypost.com/2020/07/24/washington-post-settles-250m-suit-with-covington-teen
 
There are legitimate restrictions on free speech but mostly democrats have taken it to the extreme. The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if they saw the establishment of a federalized "ministry of disinformation" during a democrat administration.
 
There are legitimate restrictions on free speech but mostly democrats have taken it to the extreme. The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if they saw the establishment of a federalized "ministry of disinformation" during a democrat administration.
As far as I know, the DGB doesn't and won't have any powers to prevent anything from being posted or said, which, yeah, would draw a First Amendment penalty flag. They appear to be the Department of Calling You On Your Bullshit, which any of us are allowed to do. You have to admit that the spread of floods and floods of obvious lies are a real problem these days, and I'm okay with the government using some of its massive resources to call it out.
 
As far as I know, the DGB doesn't and won't have any powers to prevent anything from being posted or said, which, yeah, would draw a First Amendment penalty flag. They appear to be the Department of Calling You On Your Bullshit, which any of us are allowed to do. You have to admit that the spread of floods and floods of obvious lies are a real problem these days, and I'm okay with the government using some of its massive resources to call it out.
It's one thing to bullshit on the forum but quite another to be called on it (censored?) by the federal government.
 
There are legitimate restrictions on free speech but mostly democrats have taken it to the extreme. The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if they saw the establishment of a federalized "ministry of disinformation" during a democrat administration.
Actually, the experience of the U.S. during the Federalist-supported “Alien & Sedition Acts” shows that even as early as 1798, “foreign agents” stirring up trouble in newspapers were considered dangerous and subject to persecution, jailing, etc.

What was the Revolution itself but a war against British Royalist influence in colonial America? The truth is that men like Jefferson and Paine had to wage a hard and often losing fight against that era’s “disinformation.”

In general, “Free Speech” rights were not nearly so extensive in their times as in modern times. Even the Bill of Rights “First Amendment” guarantee was not applicable to many individual states, since it applied only to the still weak Federal Government then. Even the U.S. Post Office often refused to circulate unpopular journals, as for example Abolitionist journals in the South, or much later Margaret Sanger’s pamphlets on contraceptive education.

While we can look back to important political struggles, to Constitutional changes and evolving judicial precedent to understand our nation’s history, we ought not exaggregate the degree to which all the original “Founding Fathers” accepted modern ideas about “free speech” or “freedom of the press.”
 
It's one thing to bullshit on the forum but quite another to be called on it (censored?) by the federal government.
Exactly! Calling it out and censoring it are two different things. I'm all for them calling BS, but I'm not worrying about it until they are preventing anything from getting out.
 
Actually, the experience of the U.S. during the Federalist-supported “Alien & Sedition Acts” shows that even as early as 1798, “foreign agents” stirring up trouble in newspapers were considered dangerous and subject to persecution, jailing, etc.
Keep in mind that the Sedition Act was wildly unpopular, blatantly unconstitutional, helped end Adams' career, and left to die unrenewed two years later.
 
Keep in mind that the Sedition Act was wildly unpopular, blatantly unconstitutional, helped end Adams' career, and left to die unrenewed two years later.

I think you may be reading modern views into the past here. One of the advocates of the Alien & Sedition Acts was, after all, the highly popular and regarded George Washington himself. He had just retired when the Sedition Acts were passed and his Vice President John Adams replaced him. It was Washington and Adams’ supporters, the Federalists (even including Patrick Henry eventually), that supported the Acts. Truth be told, attacks on G.W. by the emerging Jeffersonian Democrats were at times almost as fierce as those on Jefferson later. It was a complicated issue.

I think you are correct that the Alien & Sedition Acts became very unpopular later, but I believe this was due more to French foreign policy errors (the “X.Y.Z. Affair”) that moderated the pro-French Jeffersonian faction, than any unanimity concerning free speech or free press rights to criticize government. The emerging party system and the real weakness of the federal government were probably more significant in that period in preventing federal over-reach than any broadly understood personal “Constitutional rights,” though the Constitution certainly helped set the stage for future advances, as “incorporation” gradually extended the Bill of Rights to apply to state government after the Civil War.
 
Last edited:
P.S. As one historian of this period summed up …

“In the American tradition this episode almost amounts to a massacre of saints by saints and perhaps that is the reason why historians have often touched on the matter only in brief, preferring to write of more pleasant things.”

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1843624
 

Forum List

Back
Top