ONLINE JOURNALISM comes in two venues-----YOU TUBE/FACEBOOK/TED TALKS are warm and fuzzy----while VENTURE CAPITALISTS from global banking 1% sacking and looting ROBBER BARON few decades are using our VOICES/PHYSICAL MOVEMENTS caught in surveillance to build billion dollar security and robotic/artificial intelligence corporations.
While my case of NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG illegal surveillance and black market PORN moves forward---the process of THE NETWORK bringing people into the game of FOLLOWING a person like me-----being HIT----has all attention away from MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE TECHNOLOGY for only the global 1%.
Below we see what is a FAKE NEWS justice case being brought to FEDERAL COURT against supposed GOOGLE attacking FREEDOM OF SPEECH. PRAGER UNIVERSITY is simply a venture capitalist media outlet owned by someone partnered with the goals of GOOGLE. This is FAKE NEWS media outlet claiming to be THE VOICE OF CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WING------just as TED TALKS pretends to be THE VOICE OF LEFT SOCIAL DEMOCRACY.
This Federal court case ended with FEDERAL RULING that GOOGLE can CENSURE anyone/any business it wants---it is a PRIVATELY OWNED INTERNET VENUE. Hmmm, remember when DARPA-----the origin of INTERNET was PUBLIC MILITARY----OWNED BY 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
'How factual are the videos made by Prager University?
PragerU was founded by Dennis Prager, a sixty-nine-year-old, ultra-conservative, Jewish radio talk-show host and author/public speaker with an established agenda for converting people to American conservatism.
Dennis Prager – Wikipedia And that pr...'
Residence New York City
Known for venture capital'
Sorry KENNETH----no one believes your media outlet was about conserative right wing VOICE!
'The entry on laissez faire economics is not very conservative!
Wikipedia correctly identifies laissez faire with liberalism. But this should be understood to be classical liberalism'.
PRAGER UNIVERSITY owned by a KENNETH LERER is simply one global banking 1% MEDIA/JOURNALISM with goals of PREDATORY media as MEGA-DATA. Without coincidence LERER graduated and teaches journalism at US IVY LEAGUE HEDGE FUND CORPORATION------COLUMBIA.
PRAGER MEDIA WAS AS MUCH FAKE NEWS AS ANY US NATIONAL MEDIA.
'Lerer has taught at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, the University of Pennsylvania, and New York University, where he lectured on the media and American corporations.
PRAGER is to TED TALKS what global banking 1% is to killing all our sovereign US conservative right wing and social progressive left wing POLITICS and POPULIST journalism.
Bahr: YouTube censorship control calls for debate
- By: Connor Bahr firstname.lastname@example.org
- Aug 26, 2019
It all started in 2017, when PragerU, a self-defined “non-profit education media company,” sued YouTube for censoring their videos. According to PragerU, YouTube had classified over 100 of their videos as inappropriate in 2017 (That number is now over the 200s). Some of these videos include “The Ten Commandments,” “Israel’s Legal Founding” and “Cops Are The Good Guys." PragerU claims that these videos are not inappropriate at all, and YouTube is simply censoring them because they are conservative.
Another popular conservative YouTuber, Steven Crowder, was recently involved in a lawsuit with Carlos Maza, a Vox show host. At first, YouTube decided that Crowder's remarks, however vulgar and offensive, were not considered hate speech and therefore required no censorship. However, after a barrage of backlash from the left, YouTube demonetized Crowder’s videos. YouTube then announced that it would be looking to tighten its grips on the content that is released on its platform as a whole.
Censoring hate speech isn’t inherently a bad thing. Speech that incites violence should be hidden from those who might take it to heart, but the problem lies with who gets to decide what hate speech is. On YouTube, Google gets to decide what counts as hate speech and censors it accordingly. And it’s clear from Crowder vs Maza that YouTube is willing to give in to backlash. So when it comes to hate speech on YouTube, it seems mob rule is the only rule.
However, Google has already admitted that it wishes to censor conservative media.
Project Veritas released a video that showed a former Google employee secretly recording a meeting with Google executive, Jen Gennai. Gennai goes on to state that Google had altered its algorithms to bring “fairness” onto the platform, and then said, “The same people who voted for the current president ... do not agree with our definition of fairness.” Gennai later admitted that these statements were real. The ex-google employee who leaked the video stated that conservative YouTubers were being censored to stop them from becoming popular.
This is a potentially very dangerous situation. If YouTube gets to decide what “hate speech” is, what is stopping it from censoring any opinion it doesn’t agree with? And at what point does this censorship begin to break the First Amendment? There is no way to know now, but I believe that in the near future, this will be a defining debate for all of America.
We are looking at just one corporate media stream being created by ONE MAN-----KENNETH LEHER venture capitalist. LEHER being PRAGER U------is behind BUZZFEED ----is behind BETAWORKS. All of these appear on SOCIAL MEDIA---TWITTER pretending they are fighting FAKE NEWS CORPORATE MEDIA.
'Despite BuzzFeed's entrance into serious journalism, a 2014 Pew Research Center survey found that in the United States, BuzzFeed was viewed as an unreliable source by the majority of respondents, regardless of age or political affiliation. BuzzFeed News has since moved to its own domain rather than exist as a section of the main BuzzFeed website'
Here we see GLOBAL BANKING 1% VULTURE CAPITALISTS behind the flood of online start ups as DEMOCRATIZING TECHNOLOGY MEDIA/JOURNALISM. THIRTY LABS being start up funding for social media which will not last more then a few years.
Media Veteran Fred Seibert Ties Up With Betaworks To Create Video Technology Incubator Thirty Labs
Fred Seibert just won’t slow down. After living what he counts as five lives in different forms of media, the 63-year old veteran of cable and online programming is working on a new project to incubate ideas and products that he hopes will — once again — change the way people think about and consume video content. Seibert’s new company ...'
What discuss often how HUFFINGTON POST was always FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS---while it pretended to be an ONLINE LEFTIST media journalism. LEHER again tied to HUFFINGTON POST FAKE NEWS media. Oh, look BUZZFEED known to be FAKE NEWS was nominated for global media awards like PULITZER PRIZE.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BuzzFeed, Inc. is an American Internet media, news and entertainment company with a focus on digital media; it is based in New York City. BuzzFeed was founded in 2006 by Jonah Peretti and John S. Johnson III, to focus on tracking viral content. Kenneth Lerer, co-founder and chairman of The Huffington Post, started as a co-founder and investor in BuzzFeed and is now the executive chairman.
Originally known for online quizzes, "listicles", and pop culture articles, the company has grown into a global media and technology company, providing coverage on a variety of topics including politics, DIY, animals, and business. In late 2011, BuzzFeed hired Ben Smith of Politico as editor-in-chief, to expand the site into serious journalism, long-form journalism, and reportage. After years of investment in investigative journalism, by 2018 BuzzFeed News had won the National Magazine Award and the George Polk Award, and been a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize and the Michael Kelly Award.
Hmmm, seems like only a handful of people are pretending all this ONLINE TECHNOLOGY is allowing global 99% of people to have a VOICE.
PragerU v. YouTube
Free speech is in jeopardy. Big Tech behemoths like YouTube, Facebook…'
Betaworks is a startup studio that builds and invests in next generation internet companies.
New York, New York, United States
Betaworks is a startup studio that builds and invests in next generation internet companies.
Founded in 2008, betaworks is a company of builders.
A tightly linked network of ideas, people, capital, products and data brought together in imaginative ways to build out a more connected world. At first glance we seem to do many things. But first and foremost, we're builders, seeking to create a more sustainable innovation model. The more we build, the more we learn, the more we get ideas for peripheral things, all related, connected -- in a loosely coupled network of products and companies.
betaworks is structured as a company-- a single company that owns larger pieces of the things it has built and smaller pieces of the things it has invested in. It operates as a network: a tightly linked network of ideas, people, capital, and data united to build out a more inspired and useful connected world. betaworks makes seed-stage investments in this ecosystem. To us, seed investing means "first money in." Our typical investment size is $150,000-200,000. We always invest as part of a syndicate of angels and early stage VCs. Our requirements from an investment perspective are simple, though narrow. Investments must be early stage, heavily tech focused, and have a working (public or private) prototype. We are a powerpoint-free zone
While TRIBE OF JUDAH as global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----always comes from any capture of societal structures from a hundred different ways as we see with today's MEDIA/JOURNALISM both on mainstream media and ONLINE TECHNOLOGY media-----KNIGHTS OF MALTA----OLD WORLD CATHOLIC KINGS use global institutional power in MEDIA and JOURNALISM
Many of those US IVY LEAGUES------many of those MINI-ME 'NEW FAKE IVIES' as well as the OLD WORLD IVY LEAGUE universities are OLD WORLD CATHOLIC voices.
Whether media comes from CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY---GEORGETOWN-----NOTRE DAME-----these media are as much FAKE NEWS as mainstream. THE MONASTERY tells us POPE FRANCIS is 'leftist' making conservative Catholics MAD----when FRANCIS is raging ONE WORLD TRANSHUMANISM -----nothing more far-far-far right wing than GLOBAL CORPORATE FASCISM becoming TOTALITARIANISM. That is who POPE FRANCIS is.
All CATHOLIC freemasonry medical schools/hospitals/research is MOVING FORWARD GMO HUMANS-----MEGA DATA artificial intelligence replacing HUMAN workers-----TRANSHUMANISM as a way to colonize MARS-----
EUTHANASIA IS AFFORDABLE ACT 'AFFORDABILITY' FOR SUSTAINING GLOBAL PREDATORY MEDICAL CORPORATE PROFITS----
'Pope Francis Cracks Down on Catholic Euthanasia
- Universal ...
Pope Francis Cracks Down on Catholic Euthanasia.
The Vatican’s stance is clear: “the pleas of gravely ill people who sometimes ask for death are not to be understood as implying a true desire for euthanasia.” Pope Francis is trying to crack down on euthanasia in Catholic-run charity clinics'.
The POPE is not afraid of SCHISM in Catholic Church because MOVING FORWARD back to 3000BC has goals of killing all WESTERN religions-----FRANCIS is MOVING that forward. This great schism is simply the complete discarding of all that is thousands of years of early CHRISTIAN stance on GOD and his CREATION----MAN AND WOMAN.
'Pope 'not afraid' of schism in Catholic Church -
Pope Francis said Tuesday he was "not afraid" of a schism in the Roman Catholic Church, in reference to attacks by conservative cardinals who frequently take aim at his papacy. The most famous breakaway from the Church was the so-called Great Schism of 1054 between Eastern and Western Christianity'
What is called LEFTIST---MARXIST everyone in CATHOLIC CHURCH leadership knows is far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic extreme wealth extreme poverty -----NIHILISM----but they are pretending POPE FRANCIS loves the POOR---GOD'S CHILDREN.
"The Pope is too communist," Francis said, paraphrasing some conservative sentiment against him'.
The above statement is the BIGGEST FAKE NEWS coming from a VATICAN LEADER.
POPE FRANCIS as with THE HOSPITALLERS controlling most Catholic medical facilities drive EUGENICS-----DE-POPULATION CONTRACEPTION----TRANSHUMANISM----AND EUTHANASIA.
But we were forced to embrace those policies because of AFFORDABLE CARE ACT----say global corporate medical facilities pretending they are RELIGIOUS.
GLOBAL TRADE AGREEMENTS VIA TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT RULE SAY CATHOLIC MEDICAL FREEMASONRY CORPORATIONS.
Yes, this FAKE NEWS POPE FRANCIS even sells NEW GREEN DEAL --------as CLIMATE CHANGE environmentalism-
'Pope Francis said Tuesday he was "not afraid" of a schism in the Roman Catholic Church, in reference to attacks by conservative cardinals who frequently take aim at his papacy'.
Lots of FAKE NEWS coming from global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS---KNIGHTS OF MALTA---TRIBE OF JUDAH.
Pope Francis's edict on climate change has fallen on closed ears, study finds
This article is more than 2 years oldHailed as a significant call for action, the pope’s encyclical has not had the anticipated rallying effect on public opinion, researchers have found
@NicolaKSDavis Mon 24 Oct 2016 11.48 EDT Last modified on Wed 14 Feb 2018 12.07 EST
The pope’s call for action on climate change has fallen on closed ears, research suggests.
A study by researchers in the US has found that right-leaning Catholics who had heard of the pope’s message were less concerned about climate change and its effects on the poor than those who had not, and had a dimmer view of the pope’s credibility.
“The pope and his papal letter failed to rally any broad support on climate change among the US Catholics and non-Catholics,” said Nan Li, first author of the research from Texas Tech University.
PERHAPS CATHOLIC CITIZENS ARE NOT BROADLY SUPPORTING THE POPE ON CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES BECAUSE THESE CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES ARE FAKE ENVIRONMENTALISM AND KILL THE POOR.
“The conservative Catholics who are cross-pressured by the inconsistency between the viewpoints of their political allies and their religious authority would tend to devalue the pope’s credibility on this issue in order to resolve the cognitive dissonance that they experience,” she added.
Issued in June 2015, Pope Francis’s encyclical, called Laudato Si’, warned of an “unprecedented destruction of ecosystems” if climate change continues unchecked and cited the scientific consensus that human activity is behind global warming.
Research conducted on the eve of the announcement found that 68% of Americans and 71% of US Catholics believe in climate change, with Democrats more likely than Republicans to believe in the issue, put it down to human causes and rate it as a serious problem.
The pontiff’s comments were seen by many as a significant call for action in the battle against climate change, focusing on the moral need to address the impact of humans on the planet. “Pope Francis is personally committed to this [climate] issue like no other pope before him. The encyclical will have a major impact,” said Christiana Figueres, the UN’s climate chief, at the time.
But new research published in the journal Climatic Change suggests that the encyclical might not have had the anticipated rallying effect on public opinion.
In a nationally representative survey of 2,755 individuals across the US, including more than 700 Catholics, researchers quizzed individuals on their attitudes towards climate change, its effects on the poor and papal credibility on the issue, together with questions on their political views and demographics such as age, sex and ethnicity. The team found that 22.5% of respondents said they had either heard of the pope’s message or his plans for the letter.
Overall, the team found that members of the public who identified as politically liberal, whether Catholic or not, were more likely to be concerned about climate change and perceive climate change as disproportionately affecting the poor than those who identified as conservative.
But knowledge of the papal letter did not overall appear to be linked to higher levels of concern regarding climate change.
Instead, the researchers found that the effects of awareness of the letter were small, although awareness was linked to more polarised views. For both Catholics and non-Catholics, conservatives who were aware of the letter were less likely to be concerned about climate change and its risk to the poor, compared to those who had not. The opposite trend was seen among liberals.
But, the authors say, among both conservative Catholics and non-Catholics who had heard of the encyclical, the pontiff’s perceived credibility decreased as political leaning veered to the right.
“For people who are most conservative, the Catholics who are aware of the encyclical give the pope 0.5 less than Catholics who aren’t aware of the encyclical on a one to five scale,” said Li.
The researchers say it is not clear if the increased polarisation is caused by hearing about the encyclical or, for example, if more politically engaged individuals were simply more likely to be aware of the papal letter.
“In sum, while [the] pope’s environmental call may have increased some individuals’ concerns about climate change, it backfired with conservative Catholics and non-Catholics, who not only resisted the message but defended their pre-existing beliefs by devaluing the pope’s credibility on climate change,” the authors write.
The results chime with the reaction to the papal stance by conservative media and a number of prominent individuals, including former presidential candidate Jeb Bush who rebuffed the pope’s message, saying: “I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinal or my pope.”
Neil Thorns, director of advocacy at the Catholic aid agency Cafod, said: “Laudato Si’ was a wake-up call on how we’re treating our planet and its people which unsurprisingly – although disappointingly - some climate deniers and those with vested interests were not willing to hear.”
MEANWHILE, these few decades of ROBBER BARON CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA killing our strong PUBLIC MEDIA/JOURNALISM along with strong US PUBLIC SCHOOLS-----all tied to education our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE to hold power accountable---to keep extreme wealth at bay--------are using these institutions below as the tools of forcing MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE---US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES taking US to colonial status-----no US sovereign citizens need apply.
LOYOLA-----GLOBAL HEDGE FUND BLOOMBERG UNIVERSITY aka JOHNS HOPKINS ---along with URBAN LEAGUE are the power in US cities having created FAILED STATES to install FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES for only global corporations.
This is from where all of today's FAKE NEWS-----pathway for only global banking 5% freemason/Greek MEDIA/JOURNALIST players comes. I
t is also from where NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG illegal surveillance and PORN with HITTING people having a REAL POPULIST voice is SUPPORTED. We say all this is on THE NETWORK---an OPEN SECRET-----
RECAP First Saturday Leadership Program Session of the Year'!
SLP KICKS OFF AT
September has arrived which means the Saturday Leadership Program is in full swing! This session we welcomed 100 students, new and returning, to Loyola University.
The day began with a Loyola student panel during which participants asked questions ranging from how panelists chose their majors to what resources are available to minority students. After the panel, students were separated by grade to attend tailored workshops facilitated by our Bank of America and Greater Baltimore Leadership Association volunteers. After lunch, new students all went on a campus tour while returning students learned about service oriented majors/organizations and student resources. We ended the day with recognizing students who arrived early and who exhibited great leadership!
We're looking forward to the year ahead! Saturday Leadership Program
The Saturday Leadership Program, which was launched in 2013, was created by GBUL to serve as a bridge program to expose Baltimore City youth to critical developmental skills and local young professionals to serve as support and role models. This monthly program has a new cohort of students every academic year, who are between the ages of 13—18. The students learn supplemental skills and interact with young professionals of color. Each session is held at a different university or college in Baltimore.
Youth Executive Board members, Imani & Jadon, leading the morning icebreaker!
Morning Icebreaker: Extreme Rock, Paper, Scissors!
Loyola Student Panel
Photos by Bill Carson PhotographySupport the Urban League
Save Orchard Street Church!
Greater Baltimore Urban League Headquarters
Oldest standing structure in Baltimore built by Black people for Black people
SUPPORT OUR CAMPAIGN ON GOFUNDME
IT'S ALMOST TIME FOR INFORMATIONAL INTERVIEWS!
Saturday, November 9th @ Johns Hopkins University
During this special session, our participants have the opportunity to interact with professional volunteers from diverse careers! Our goal is to develop their networking and relationship building skills. If you are interested in volunteering for this event click HERE
PRAGER U VS YOU TUBE OR GOOGLE is an AFFRONT to our US journalist history. Today's US SUPREME COURT is captured by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----not tied to COMMON LAW or our US CONSTITUTIONAL history so we have no safeguards for our hard-fought FREEDOM OF PRESS----COMMON MAN JOURNALISM
Citizen journalism WAS OUR US MEDIA AND JOURNALISM. Our students graduating from journalism schools were taught to HOLD POWER AND WEALTH ACCOUNTABLE----and provide REAL INFORMATION--TRUTH AND HONESTY sell newspapers.
BETAWORKS et al is simply flooding our ONLINE PRESENCE of media that was supposed to be filled with 99% WE THE PEOPLE. Instead, these global banking media venues are allowing us to be STORYTELLERS for mega-data collection feeding into ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE so these MACHINES can replace HUMANS in all that is ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
Freedom of the Press in Eighteenth-Century England
Updated Sep 08 2019 About encyclopedia.com content Print Article Share Article Freedom of the Press in Eighteenth-Century England updated Sep 08 2019
Freedom of the Press in Eighteenth-Century EnglandDavid Hume
Prior to 1776 the colonies were governed by the English common law. After the signing of the Declaration of Independence, much of this common law was incorporated into the laws of the new states. Part of that law included the lengths to which the press could be regulated or restrained. In the following excerpt, published in 1742, David Hume, a Scottish professor of philosophy, describes the status of freedom of the press in the United Kingdom. He contends that freedom of the press is the result of Britain's mixed form of government, which is part republican and part monarchical. The free press is necessary in order to preserve the republican aspect of the government from abuse of power on the part of the monarchy. These basic principles would later form the foundation for the adoption of the First Amendment and its guarantee of freedom of the press in the United States.
Primary Source TextNothing is more apt to surprise a foreigner than the extreme liberty which we enjoy in this country of communicating whatever we please to the public and of openly censuring every measure entered into by the king or his ministers. If the administration resolve upon war, it is affirmed that, either willfully or ignorantly, they mistake the interests of the nation; and that peace, in the present situation of affairs, is infinitely preferable. If the passion of the ministers lie toward peace, our political writers breathe nothing but war and devastation, and represent the specific conduct of the government as mean and pusillanimous. As this liberty is not indulged in any other government, either republican or monarchical—in Holland and Venice more than in France or Spain—it may very naturally give occasion to the question: How it happens that Great Britain alone enjoys this peculiar privilege? And whether the unlimited exercise of this liberty be advantageous or prejudicial to the public.
The reason why the laws indulge us in such a liberty seems to be derived from our mixed form of government, which is neither wholly monarchical nor wholly republican. It will be found, if I mistake not, a true observation in politics that the two extremes in government, liberty and slavery, commonly approach nearest to each other; and that, as you depart from the extremes and mix a little of monarchy with liberty, the government becomes always the more free, and on the other hand, when you mix a little of liberty with monarchy, the yoke becomes always the more grievous and intolerable. In a government, such as that of France, which is absolute and where law, custom, and religion concur, all of them, to make the people fully satisfied with their condition, the monarch cannot entertain any jealousy against his subjects and therefore is apt to indulge them in great liberties, both of speech and action. In a government altogether republican, such as that of Holland, where there is no magistrate so eminent as to give jealousy to the state, there is no danger in entrusting the magistrates with large discretionary powers; and though many advantages result from such powers, in preserving peace and order, yet they lay a considerable restraint on men's actions and make every private citizen pay a great respect to the government. Thus it seems evident that the two extremes of absolute monarchy and of a republic approach near to each other in some material circumstances. In the first the magistrate has no jealousy of the people, in the second the people have none of the magistrate; which want of jealousy begets a mutual confidence and trust in both cases and produces a species of liberty in monarchies and of arbitrary power in republics. . . .
The Certainty of the Rule of LawAs the republican part of the government prevails in England, though with a great mixture of monarchy, it is obliged, for its own preservation, to maintain a watchful jealousy over the magistrates, to remove all discretionary powers, and to secure everyone's life and fortune by general and inflexible laws. No action must be deemed a crime but what the law has plainly determined to be such; no crime must be imputed to a man but from a legal proof before his judges, and even these judges must be his fellow subjects, who are obliged by their own interest to have a watchful eye over the encroachments and violence of the ministers. From these causes it proceeds that there is as much liberty, and even perhaps licentiousness, in Great Britain as there were formerly slavery and tyranny in Rome.
These principles account for the great liberty of the press in these kingdoms beyond what is indulged in any other government. It is apprehended that arbitrary power would steal in upon us were we not careful to prevent its progress and were there not an easy method of conveying the alarm from one end of the kingdom to the other. The spirit of the people must frequently be roused in order to curb the ambition of the court, and the dread of rousing this spirit must be employed to prevent that ambition. Nothing so effectual to this purpose as the liberty of the press, by which all the learning, wit, and genius of the nation may be employed on the side of freedom and everyone be animated to its defense. As long, therefore, as the republican part of our government can maintain itself against the monarchical, it will naturally be careful to keep the press open, as of importance to its own preservation.
A Common Right of MankindSince, therefore, the liberty of the press is so essential to the support of our mixed government, this sufficiently decides the second question: Whether this liberty be advantageous or prejudicial, there being nothing of greater importance in every state than the preservation of the ancient government, especially if it be a free one. But I would fain go a step further and assert that such a liberty is attended with so few inconveniences that it may be claimed as the common right of mankind and ought to be indulged them almost in every government except the ecclesiastical, to which, indeed, it would be fatal. We need not dread from this liberty any such ill consequences as followed from the harangues of the popular demagogues of Athens and tribunes of Rome. A man reads a book or pamphlet alone and coolly. There is none present from whom he can catch the passion by contagion. He is not hurried away by the force and energy of action. And should he be wrought up to never so seditious a humor, there is no violent resolution presented to him by which he can immediately vent his passion. The liberty of the press, therefore, however abused, can scarce ever excite popular tumults or rebellion. And as to those murmurs or secret discontents it may occasion, it is better they should get vent in words, that they may come to the knowledge of the magistrate before it be too late, in order to his providing a remedy against them. Mankind, it is true, have always a greater propension to believe what is said to the disadvantage of their governors than the contrary; but this inclination is inseparable from them whether they have liberty or not. A whisper may fly as quick and be as pernicious as a pamphlet. Nay, it will be more pernicious where men are not accustomed to think freely or distinguish betwixt truth and falsehood. . . .
It is a very comfortable reflection to the lovers of liberty that this peculiar privilege of Britain is of a kind that cannot easily be wrested from us and must last as long as our government remains in any degree free and independent. It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Slavery has so frightful an aspect to men accustomed to freedom that it must steal in upon them by degrees and must disguise itself in a thousand shapes in order to be received. But if the liberty of the press ever be lost, it must be lost at once. The general laws against sedition and libeling are at present as strong as they possibly can be made. Nothing can impose a further restraint but either the clapping an imprimatur upon the press or the giving very large discretionary powers to the court to punish whatever displeases them. But these concessions would be such a barefaced violation of liberty that they will probably be the last efforts of a despotic government. We may conclude that the liberty of Britain is gone forever when these attempts shall succeed.