A weblog for Pete Ellertsen's mass communications students at Benedictine University Springfield.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

COMM317 -- Zenger case

In class we will read up on a famous trial in the 1735 that helped establish the principle of freedom of the press in America. Plaintiff was the colonial government of New York. Defendant was John Peter Zenger, a printer who published commentary that the royal governor didn't like. Read the piece called "The Zenger Trial: An Account" by Douglas Linder (it jumps to another page, so you'll need to click on the "CONTINUED" link.

Take notes on it. Use the same headings:
Style. (Crown v. Zenger)
Facts.
Law.
Issues.
Holding. In this case, what the jury did.
Reasoning. Several sentences.
Post your briefs to the blog. Here's how.

How to post your response

Scroll down to the bottom of this post. On the right side of the last line, there will be a link that says "___ posts" (with a number filled in where I've left a blank, depending on how many comments have been posted). Click on that link and fill in the comment field on the right. Sign in (make a note of the username and password you choose because we'll keep on posting to the blog), review your comment if you wish and publish it by clicking on "Publish Your Comment." Logical, isn't it?

4 comments:

Shalon said...

citation: John Peter Zenger v New York City

Facts:Zenger wrote some slanderous information about the governer in his local news journal, but it was all true.

Law: Publishing false news and seditious libels is against the law.

Issue: Is freedom of speach different from liable? Is taking away freedom of speach wrong?

Holding: Zenger was found Not Guilty.

Rational: It was conferred that the alleged lible was freedom of speech.

Mitch said...

Style: Crown v. Zenger
Facts: Zenger published facts about the royal governor that the governor didn't approve of.
Law: One may not publish untrue and/or seditious libel.
Issue: Can newspapers publish any and all facts concerning the government?
Holding: Innocent.
Reasoning: What Zenger published was true. Therefore, the public had a right and a need to know.

whitney said...

citation: William Cosby v John Peter Zenger

facts: John Peter Zenger wrote some newspaper articles about William Cosby that William Cosby thought were lies

law: Cosby had a charge of libel

issues: Did John Peter Zenger print lies in his paper about William Cosby?

holding: Not Guilty

rational: They ruled Zenger was not guilty because he admitted he wrote libeling things about Cosby

Keith Evans said...

Keith Evans

Mass Media Law and Ethics

1/30/07



I. Citation
A. This case was brought forth to by the state of New York vs one John Peter Zenger. Zenger was accused of “seditious libel” against the acting governor of New York, William Cosby.

II. The Facts
A. William Cosby took over the post of governor in 1731. He instantly became involved in a dispute with a senior member of the provincial council named Rip Van Dam. Cosby demanded that Van Dam pay back half of his salary from his time at work. Van Dam demanded that Cosby pay him half of his money as well, which would net his a profit. Cosby followed that up by filing a suit for half of Van Dam’s pay. One judge did not agree with Cosby’s decision. Chief Justice Lewis Morris was forced to explain his vote.Morris did s, but to Cosby's displeasure, his response appeared not in a private letter to the Governor, but in a pamphlet written by Zenger.
B. Zenger wrote an article in his paper that talked about how Cosby was a “rogue” leader and that the Quakers were fed up with all the trouble he had started. He also said that Cosby was about to be ousted from office. Cosby let the newspaper run for 2 months before shutting it down. He also filed a suit of libel against Zenger and ordered his arrest.

III. Legal issues
A. Does Zenger have the right to talk badly about the governor if he is just stating the opinions of the rest of the people? How far does free speech go if it is not in a constitiution yet?

IV. The Holding
A. The courts ruled in favor of the defendant(Zenger) on all issues. Motion for plaintiff is denied.

V. Legal Rationale
A. This case just questioned the idea of free speech before it was put into the constitution, which had not been made yet. They were still tossing that idea around before deciding if every human had that right. It had not been implemented yet.

Blog Archive

About Me

Springfield (Ill.), United States
I'm a retired English, journalism and cultural studies teacher at Springfield College in Illinois (acquired by Benedictine University and subsequently closed). I coordinate jam sessions for the "Clayville Pioneer Academy of Music" at Clayville Historic Site and the Prairieland Strings dulcimer club, and I sing in the choir and the contemporary praise team at Peace Lutheran Church in Springfield. On Hogfiddle I post links and video clips for our sessions and workshops on the mountain dulcimer (a.k.a. "hog fiddle"), as well as research notes on folklore and cultural studies, hymnody and traditional Anglo-Celtic and Scandinavian music. I also posted assignments and readings in my interdisciplinary humanities classes. The Mackerel Wrapper (now on hiatus), carried assignments and readings for my mass comm. students. I started teaching b/log when I chaired SCI-Benedictine's assessment committee, and reopened it as the privatization of public schools grew increasingly troubling and closer to home.