1st Amendment and the Nauvoo Expositor

[OtherCheek]

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution states the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 1st Amendment was ratified in Dec. 1791
***
Barron v. Baltimore
In 1833, the Bill of rights was determined to apply only to federal law, as passed by the U.S. Congress. In a unanimous decision, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion that the first ten "amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them." This meant the the 1st 10 Amendments did not restrict "state" government, but only Federal government. This ruling remained until 1925.


This was in 1833
***
1868:

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. In the 1st section, it stated the following

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This was in 1868.
***
In 1925, a case came before the Supreme Court on appeal, Gitlow v. New York in 1925. In this case, Gitlow, a socialist activist, distributed a paper in New York that advocated the overthrow of the U.S. Government. He was convicted under a State statute and police force was used against him. In his appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court was convinced (by an ACLU Lawyer by the way) that liberty of expression was a right to be protected against state abridgment.. He supported his argument by appealing to the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment cited above.

The conviction was upheld, and NY Law sustained, HOWEVER, the conviction was not overturned. The opinion that had the lasting impact upon states rights was offered by Justice Edward T. Sanford who wrote: "for present purposes, we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press … are among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States"

This was in 1925.

The Gitlow decision launched “incorporation” of the First Amendment. It was not until Stromberg v. California (1931), however, that the Court actually ruled a state law unconstitutional on First Amendment free speech grounds.

Source

***

June 7, 1844

The Nauvoo Expositor makes it's first and only publication full of provocative and incendiary journalism, written to provoke violence against the Mormons. After 14 hours of deliberation and over 3 days, and consulting William Blackstone's legal canon, it was decided to declare the Nauvoo Expositor a "public nuisance" and destroy the press.

If anything was violated in this action, it would have been "common law" and not federal law.

[Hamster]

There were legal and ethical routes for the Mormon government of the city to take, they chose to act like suppressive thugs. Also

"22. The printing presses shall be free to every person, who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the general assembly or of any branch of government; and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

"23. In prosecutions for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers, or of men acting in a public capacity, or where the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right of determining both the law and the fact, under the direction of the court as in other cases." (Art. VIII, cl. 22–23).

Also why are you starting a new thread for this?

And didn't you just spend a page and a half in the other thread saying it was okay to commit crimes if it was against something you hated or found indecent?

[OtherCheek]

There were legal and ethical routes for the Mormon government of the city to take, they chose to act like suppressive thugs. Also

Hamster, you will need to start another thread if you want to explore the violation of state laws. This thread is about the 1st Amendment and the Nauvoo Expositor--as stated clearly in the OP. It isn't a trap thread either, and I announced from the get go the title and topic of the thread.

And didn't you just spend a page and a half in the other thread saying it was okay to commit crimes if it was against something you hated or found indecent?

Your highest morality may be defined by whatever government laws permit, but mine is not. If it is deemed appropriate in your America to incite mob violence against a community or a religion through the printed word, then you can bet that I will oppose your America, and I will act as far as it is in my power to put such printing out of business.

[Sparko]

OC, you were the one arguing that they didn't violate federal laws and what they did was under the jurisdiction of the state government. And when Hamster shows you that they DID violate the state laws, you tell him he is off topic for this thread.

sheesh.

Not only that but Smith destroyed PRIVATE property. That has nothing to do with the first amendment but it does have to do with state laws. Stopping the printer from printing and destroying his newspapers, yes that does violate the laws that Hamster quoted. But the actual act of destroying the press was breaking and entering and vandalism of private property.

You would have been screaming about all the laws being broken if the townsfolk had burned down the press that the BoM was printed on and destroyed all the copies of the BoM.

[Hamster]

Your highest morality may be defined by whatever government laws permit,

Except there's nothing evil or wrong about the concept free speech and free expression, sorry. You take advantage of it every day. And no one can gather from my comments that my morality is "defined" by the government. You're either have terrible reading comprehension or are just dishonest.

And you are a major hypocrite if you have a problem with the 19th century Mormons getting run out of town for their offensive ideas about religion and polygamy but you have no problem with a Mormon government silencing critics through illegal/unethical acts of violence

[OtherCheek]

Except there's nothing evil or wrong about the concept free speech and free expression, sorry. You take advantage of it every day. And no one can gather from my comments that my morality is "defined" by the government. You're either have terrible reading comprehension or are just dishonest.

And you are a major hypocrite if you have a problem with the 19th century Mormons getting run out of town for their offensive ideas about religion and polygamy but you have no problem with a Mormon government silencing critics through illegal/unethical acts of violence

So you would have no problem with Constitutionally protecting free speech that might call for genocide against Jews for example? or Mormons?

[Hamster]

Genocide now? What they were printing was comparable to demanding the extinction of an entire race of people? Are you serious?

[OtherCheek]

OC, you were the one arguing that they didn't violate federal laws and what they did was under the jurisdiction of the state government. And when Hamster shows you that they DID violate the state laws, you tell him he is off topic for this thread.

sheesh.

This thread is about the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as interpreted in 1844 and the destruction of that Nauvoo Expositor.

[Sparko]

This thread is about the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as interpreted in 1844 and the destruction of that Nauvoo Expositor.

again, YOU were the one who brought up the State laws having precedence. deal with it.

[OtherCheek]

again, YOU were the one who brought up the State laws having precedence. deal with it.

I take this as a humble admission of yours (and also standing in for CP), that destroying the Nauvoo Expositor did not violate the 1st Amendment, as was the attempt to imply from CP's original thread on supporting the 1st Amendment.

Now, I will kindly ask you to bug out of this thread. And start a new thread on the STATE constitution and the Nauvoo Expositor if you like.

[Cow Poke]

I take this as a humble admission of yours (and also standing in for CP), that destroying the Nauvoo Expositor did not violate the 1st Amendment, as was the attempt to imply from CP's original thread on supporting the 1st Amendment.

Standing in for CP? I think you're getting desperate, OC.

[OtherCheek]

Standing in for CP? I think you're getting desperate, OC.

Don't insult Sparko that way.

[Cow Poke]

Don't insult Sparko that way.

It's just a sign that you have nothing credible to say.
You always "to personal" when you can't make a cogent point.

[Sparko]

I take this as a humble admission of yours (and also standing in for CP), that destroying the Nauvoo Expositor did not violate the 1st Amendment, as was the attempt to imply from CP's original thread on supporting the 1st Amendment.

Now, I will kindly ask you to bug out of this thread. And start a new thread on the STATE constitution and the Nauvoo Expositor if you like.

No. It did violate the first amendment. It's just that you showed that violating the first amendment was allowable at the time, but not violating the state laws, which Hamster pointed out.

In fact, having the first amendment but saying that the states didn't have to follow it was basically the same thing legally as not having a first amendment, since nobody had to listen to it. That is why they eventually fixed that loophole. But Missouri had it's own version of the freedom of speech and they did violate that.

And no, I am not leaving this thread because I am on topic here. You are not allowed to just kick people out of the thread for no reason just because they point out your deficient logic and say what you don't want to hear.

[OtherCheek]

No. It did violate the first amendment. It's just that you showed that violating the first amendment was allowable at the time, but not violating the state laws, which Hamster pointed out.

This makes no sense. If in 1844 it was deemed that the 1st Amendment pertained to only laws by the U.S. Congress, and not the states, then the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not even an issue when it comes to the question of whether it was violated or not.

What you are trying to do is create some sort of expost facto incrimination of Joseph Smith.

It doesn't work that way. Do you know the difference between the U.S. Constitution and Federal Law vs. State Constitutions and State law? Have you ever heard of states rights?

It is not necessarily a good thing, which as come from the Gitlow decision. It undermined states rights by altering the meaning of the 1st Amendment.