LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.

NZ Truth, Issue 252, 23 April 1910, Page 1

LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.

FREEDOM ; OF DISCUSSION

It is a .fond conceit of English speaking subjects of the British Empire to conjure *p. a legal fiction, and thereafter, acceptfcig it without ijfttcstion, to make a boast Sh'at such and" such liberty is allowed isder "English /law." We refer with tenacious uririe to Magna Charta and the Habeas Corpus Act, -without, m most liases, being able to, commit to writing an intelligible account of what benefits either has .conferred. More commonly, however, io we hear the boast that English law recognises the liberty of the press, and that under English law individuals are allowed the greatest freedom m the expression of their opinions.dlhe majority of persons fully believe i^hat ."liberty of the press" is legally xacognised, and that it dates from the -prosecution of John Wilkes over his ifemous "No. 45." It will be a matter <*f surprise, therefore, ; to many people to l»arn that ho such expression is to be found m any legal text .book. While m 4^S^vttere-existe'iihe-*'loi sur la presse," »**«r which "press aSences" are specially triable, newspaper proprietors m Great Britain and her dependencies are amen-/ teble to the ordinary law of the land and enjoy neither more nor less immunity than any private individual. "Liberty of the press" conveys simply the- fact that printing establishments may exist without a license, and there is no^censorsliip over what appears m the columns of a newspaper. ■ / The/ law does not require the Issue.pjf a licenge to permit a person, or aVfirm, or a. company to print" 1 andpublish a newspaper, periodical, or book. In this respect "liberty of the press" does exist; but it does not imply that a greater amount of freedom is vested m a printer and publisher regarding what be prints aud publishes ttian is vested m the man. m the street regarding what he iwrites or • even utters. The man m the ttreet. enjoys liberty of speech, but he may not utter that which tends to provoke a breach of the peace or to bring another into hatred, contempt or ridicule; -otberyrise his liberty becomes license, and he comes within the purview of either the' police, offences law or else the law of defamation. What the man m the street may not say, the man m the street may not write ; and what the man m tiie street may not .write, the printer and publisher of a newspaper, periodical, or book may not print and publish, for, different j from France, the same law ia British dominions applies to both. An ut- , prance by the man ins the street which is slanderous becomes libellous if written and published by either himself or jthe printer and publisher, for* m the eye of British law, all are equal. A libellous statement, . for instance one imputing' . a contagious' disease or criminal offence to another, may even bring the publisher the jurisdiction of the criminal law ; but, m this case also, the essence of the offence consists of its character, and is quite independent of whether the' 'offender is the man m the street or the publisher sof printed matter. • Matter may be the subject of civil .tor criminal proceedings which is perfectly true. The law does not permit the indiscriminate publication of matter nide-i-.iy because it is true. Some statements I(vhich are true may be more damaging i:eiid consequently more libellous than J -other statements which are so palpably ■ untrue as to call for no serious regard : .JTruth alone, therefore, is no defence to , a civil action or a criminal prosecur jtion for libel, although it may be a mat- . „. ter calling for mitigation of damages m <. the one case or of sentence m the other. ! v- Something more that truth is required <~ In order to . constitute a valid defence. i} it must have been published for the pub- , r: lie benefit. Therefore some things may p ; be said about a public man which could .',,-, not lawfully be said about a private man. ■„. - JPhe private acts or character of a priz,..Vate man are not open to public .dis--2 -. . cussion, nor / are the private acts or chari acter of a public, man except insofar as they ... tend to unfit, disqualify, , or incapacitate s him for the discharge of his public du- >, ties. The public acts of a public man, jv lioweVer, are. always open to free and :£r.<v legitimate criticism. A' man, by entering <D, , public life, to a limited 1 extent invites ygft public criticism, it is not always easy, .".however, to draw a fine line between "_ .what are and what are not fair subjects 0l comment as affecting a public or semi-

f public man. What may- or may not be a libel, on an action being brought or a criminal prosecuiaon instituted, it is the province of, the presiding . judge to say ; •but whether matter which the judge rules may be a libel actually . is , so or not, is a matter exclusiveiy for a jury to decide. , It amounts to this,, .therefore, that, m; doubtful cases, matter is or is not libellous according to the sweet will of a selected dozen shopkeepers. Small wonder iected dozen shopkeepers. : • '■' • '■■'■',• '■' . "'• '■ ' Other matters,. Resides libellous stateiments, however, besides libellous statenamely, those which; amount ;to sedition, blasphemy, or obscene and indecent matter. All these are prohibited 'on the ground of public policy.. The law of sedition is, however, rapidly falling into disuetsde, and m modern times the freest discussion of the Govermental authorities is countenanced. Under the old laws prohibitive of blasphemy, the Deity, Jesus Christ, the Bible, the Christian religion, and even the Book of Common Prayer, may not De attacked, although here again much more treedom of opinion is permitted than m medieval times. Prosecutions for obscene and indecent publications axe instituted from time to time, although m Great Britain and Australia the policy of the administrators of the law has generally been to ignore offensive matter rather than to court further/ publicity by a criminal prosecution. The policy, pursued m t the Dominion of, Mew Zealand of endeavoring to. suppress everything which does not accord m - the most .minute particular with the narrow views of the , prevailing puritanical element, which, though m a small minority, makes its presence very 'largely .'felt, is to be deprecated. The policy savors largely of the -ancient Hebraic doctrine , of . "Thou shalt not," which, m more' enlightened, times, had to give place to a more rational policy. It may, or may not, be 'a wise policy, bnti . as ., a yolcano is less a source of danger when allowed free play than when attempts ace made *to seal it ap, so a little tod much freedom of expression and a little less repression may cause less exasperation among people whose sentiments are , not on all fours with those of the aforesaid puritanical element. . ;■* ■ -■■■ -'■■»■: .:.■...;.. Magistrates are prone to order - the suppression of evidence ,m many cases which come before them juddicially, and \ the Supreme Court is always ready to severely punish for contempt any disregard- of such orders. This power of suppressing the publication of evidence given ' m criminal or< quasi-criminal prosecutions is one winch should be very sparingly and only • with the greatest amount of discretion exercised. Many of these cases are cases re-, lative to sexual offences and offences against , little girls, arid, when convictions are recorded, call for condign punishment, and, where it not for the feeling against its infliction, for the lash itself. One of the main objects of a criminal prosecution consists m its operative power as a. deterrent ; that power it cannot have if the evidence given is sup- , pressed. How are others to know of it ? Offences against little girls are committed m our midst with appalling frequency, and few parents are fully aware of the dangers besetting their infants while roaming unattended around, or, it may ' be, while going ' to and returning from school, by reason of the miscreants who prowl around like devils m human form. The public should, for very protection's sake, know these dangers, and, by knowing, take due precautions to ensure their little ones' immunity from harm. We should not live m a fool's paradise, thanking God- that we are not as other men are, while all the time some df our reputedly "holy" . cities are veritable sinks of iniquity.