PRESS, Freedom of the, the right of every citizen to print whatever he chooses. The free dom, however, does not prevent his being amen able to justice for abuse of this liberty. The right of printing rests on the same abstract grounds as the right of speech, and it might seem strange to a man unacquainted with his tory that printing should be subjected to cen sorship, as it is still in some countries and has been at one time or another in all, any more than speaking, and that the liberty of the press should be expressly provided for in the con stitutions of most free States. But when we look to history we find the origin of this, as of many other legislative anomalies, in periods when politics, religion and individual rights were confusedly intermingled. It is only since men's views of the just limits of government have become clearer that the liberty of the press has been recognized as a right; and to England and the United States world is particularly indebted for the establishment of this principle. The existence of a censorship of the press was for centuries, however, deemed essential to the safety of all European governments. Liberty of printing, as we understand it, is a compara tively modern notion; Milton's plea for a free press met with no response from his own party, nor for many years later was it the cue of any party in the English commonwealth to re frain from suppressing the writings of their political opponents. In England the liberty of the press, soon after printing was introduced, was regulated by the king's proclamations, pro hibitions, charter of license, etc., and finally by the court of star-chamber. The Long Parlia ment, after their rupture with Charles I, as sumed the same power. The government of Charles II imitated their ordinances, and the press did not really become free till the ex piration of the statutes restricting it in 1693, after which it was found impossible to pass new laws in restraint of it, and it has remained free ever since, the last restriction being done away with on the abolition of the newspaper stamp duty, in 1856. Such legal checks as re
main are merely intended to prevent outrages on religion or decency, to protect individuals from defamation and to conserve the copyright of authors. The Constitution of the United States specifically prohibits Congress from pass ing any law abridging the freedom of the press. The constitutions of most of the United States declare, as we should expect, for the liberty of the press. The same may be said of all the South American republics. In other countries the amount of freedom enjoyed by the press varies considerably and is frequently regulated by executive laws. At the outbreak of the European War in 1914 the freedom of the press in all countries was involved, and even in some of the neutral countries, was greatly restricted, though these restrictions did not apply so much to the essential right of freedom as to details in connection with the printing of war news.
As recently as 1919 a decision of the Su preme Court of Mexico in a contempt case against the editor and publisher of a local journal cleared up several points concerning the freedom of the press and the law of con tempt of court. The editor of the publication was found guilty of contempt of court by the judge whose actions he had criticized in an editorial, concerning a legal proceeding which affected the publication. An appeal taken to the Supreme Court contended "that the criticism made did not concern the official acts of the jurist, but merely his private act,* and this con tention was upheld by the Supreme Court.
While adhering to the rule that criticism calculated to obstruct the course of justice may be punished as for a contempt of court, the court held that cases of constructive contempt are criminal proceedings and that, therefore, the information, the authority of the court, the weight of the evidence (including all presump tions and proof) and the regularity of the pro governed by the rules of criminal w.