The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-02-13
FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

SINS the Qualification of hideous and revolving
crimes, like the exhortations of the Anarchist
Most to a general slaughter of mankind,
should place their authors under the strictest
| surveillance of the police, like men whose por
traits are in the rogues' gallery. But they can
not be wisely suppressed by law"
Coming from so high source, and the state
ment being in accord with the general custom
of the country, there will be little or no chal-
lenge of the assertion yet it may not be inn
proper to see whether the proposition stands
| squarely upon either law or justice. There is
nothing which, in this country, is so boasted as
the freedom Of the press and the liberty of
speech; and this freedom is indeed, achief glory
and strength of republican government.
But both law and justice suggest and provide
| that this liberty shall be properly exercised;
shall be subordinated to the public good; shall
be held liable for the Infringement Of rights;
and, in short, shall be INDUCED in only within
proper limitations and under proper restric-
TONS And these limitations and restrictions
are more decided and imperious at particular
/ eAthOo ouN POI lASOio1 NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
When the country was at war, newspapers not
held to loyalty by conviction were forced to
refrain from disloyalty by the strong arm of
! the military power. Criticism was allowed,
but when criticism passed the dan
ger line and threatened to interfere
with the success of the govern
| +lar 81, IL &bo
mouth of the dangerous newspaper, as there
was none in sending Vallandigham through
| the lines. These apparently arbitrary acts
were not based upon any suspension of the
civil code and the declaration of martial law,
but were predicated upon and justified by the
| demands of the public safety, which is the
supreme law.
| 1t is true, the bill of rights guarantees the
! freedom Of the press and freedom Of speech,
| 'but for the abuse of that right every person
| shall be responsible" So we have libel laws
and SANDER laws, and we have never heard that
the arrest and punishment of a libeller or SLAM
derer was in contraventon of the fundamental
rights of freedom of speech and of the press;
nor have we heard that libeller or SANDER
er should be placed 'under the strictest police
surveillance" They arc generally hailed be-
fore courts Of justice, and if it be proved that
the libel was malicious the libeller is not only
! mulcted in damages to the individual, but he
is placed in Jail as punishment for his crime.
H. 20 -; L. l..
restrain any of the inhabitants of the State
| from assembling together in peaceable man
ner to consult for their common good" Would
| it be assumed for a moment that, were men
| to assemble to advocate and plan
for the destruction of property and the as
sassination of some person or persons whose
removal" they deemed essential to their
'good, no law could be passed to prevent
such meetings or to dispense themY We con-
speech and of the press, and to abridge the
| right of public assembly, should be used very
cautiously, and that it would be easy for its
use to degenerate into the meanest despotsm
| But that society has such reserve power,
power that is not abdicated by any pro
vision for the liberty of the individual, there
can be no question:; while the abuse Of such
a power is not beyond instant correction when
the instruments for its enforcement are the
creatures of the whole body of the people,
who are jealous of their rights and hasty in
redressing autocratic assumption.
| 1t cannot be safely conceded that there is
an indefeasible right in any man, or set of
men, to meet for the public discussion of the
violent overthrow Of law, the blowing up of
property, or the murder Of people 1t cannot
be safely conceded that there is like right
! for any one to print incendiary newspapers
appealing to the passions Of men, and openly
| advocating and arranging for the commission of
high crimes and even murder The freedom of
the press and of speech does not cover nor
embrace the mouthings of Most, and of the
mad-dogs at Chicago and elsewhere, nor the
writings and printings Of Rosa, and the
authors Of the pronunciamentos, who seek to
instigate midnight assassination and cowardly
arson. Tho freedom of the press and of
speech does not permit the printing and pub
LEGATION of immoral books and pamphlets, nor
the indulgence in public profanity. Is it to
be asserted that this great privilege will shield
a man in openly melting to murder, to arson,
to the destruction of property, and TO the
overthrow of society Can it be held that.
the public morals or the public peace, or the
right Of character of a private individual, are
yreater and more sacred than the welfare and
possibly the very existence Of society ITSELF