Talk:John Peter Zenger/Archive 1

Issue raised by conservative website
This site says the following:
 * The Wikipedia entry for John Peter Zenger links to an incorrect Wikipedia definition of "Philadelphia lawyer", which Merriam-Webster defines as a lawyer knowledgeable in "even the most minute aspects of the law." Wikipedia claims the term comes from the Zenger trial, but Merriam-Webster puts the first use of that term at over 50 years later. Wikipedia is simply unreliable.

Any truth to this assertion? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This article claims "His trial may have resulted in the addition of the expression "Philadelphia lawyer" to the language[3]." The citation is to this Merriam-Webster page, which says "lexicographers agree that Andrew Hamilton was indeed the reason Philadelphia lawyer developed its originally positive sense. We can pin the later, more negative connotation on the mixed feelings associated, at least in this country, with the law profession."  That particular Merriam-Webster page doesn't state the time the phrase developed, but does definitely say that this case was the reason the phrase developed.  I'd say that this article is fine, but the Wiktionary page could be improved using this source.  And probably the Conservapedia entry could be improved also.  GRBerry 13:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing Text?
It seems to me that quite a bit of text is missing from this article. The second paragraph of the "Overview" section mentions an apology (?) and Zenger being jailed, but doesn't give any information about his arrest, what he was apologizing for, etc. I've gone through the article's history and can't seem to figure out what was deleted or why. 161.11.130.249 16:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of NY state case law category
I've removed the category Category: New York state case law for the following reason: Even though it was influential in the development of US free speech law, but at the time it was decided, it was English case law from New York colony. Wl219 04:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put that in originally, but please see this (the last reference to the article):

http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/zenger.html

I think Moglen's main point is that the case is also significant in New York law history independent of the fact that at the time the US didn't exist. In journalism classes students are (were?) taught about the Zenger case as a precedent in the US (or the New World, or whatever), which would be subject to your objection, too. Yet it is (was) done. --Minasbeede 21:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Importance of the Zenger Case
I don't know much about the history of the freedom of the press, but I'm in the middle of watching the 1952 movie Park Row. Regardless of the historical accuracy of the movie in general, it claims the Zenger case was *the* source of press freedom in America (note: I didn't say United States). If it *is* that important, I think there should be more here. JoshNarins (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a very important case, and you are right, there should be much more here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Zenger Trial is not an example of jury nullification
The Zenger Trial is not an example of jury nullification. Andrew Hamilton's argument for the defense was not that the jury should ignore libel law. It was that the jury should render a general verdict and interpret the libel law in the manner that Hamilton was arguing, rather than in the manner in which the prosecution was arguing. Below is a brief description of each interpretation:

Hamilton argued that "truth ought to govern the whole affair of libels.” For his client to be labeled a libeler, he insisted, “the words themselves must be libelous, that is, false, scandalous, and seditious or else we are not guilty." (Pg. 32)

The prosecution had argued that truth was not relevant to whether or not a publication was libelous. He further argued that the truth of a publication was an "aggravation of the crime" because truth was more likely to cause harm to the victim's reputation. (Pg. 17) Chief Justice Holt agreed with the prosecution and prohibited Hamilton from proving the truth of the publication.

After Holt sided with the prosecution, Hamilton turned his attention to the jury and urged them to use his interpretation of libel law. The court was applying the law incorrectly. He expected that since they were drawn from the vicinity, that they would know the publication to be true. (Pg. 26, 28)

“The jury,” Chief Justice Holt scolded “may find that Zenger printed and published those papers, and leave it to the Court to judge whether they are libelous.” Hamilton refused to relent. He challenged Holt’s claim, insisting that the jury had “the right beyond all dispute to determine both the law and the fact; and where they do not doubt of the law, they ought to do so.” [emphasis added] (Pg. 28 for the exchange) Holt was trying to force the jury to render a special verdict. Hamilton was defending the jury's right to render a general verdict. He was NOT telling them to ignore the law. Quite the contrary. He was telling them to follow the law in reaching their verdict. He was just telling them to interpret the law differently than how the judge was instructing. Again, he was not telling them to ignore the law.

Holt eventually conceded and instructed the jury that they could determine “whether the words as set forth in the information make a libel.” The jury returned with an acquittal after only ten minutes of deliberation.

[source: John Peter Zenger et Al., A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger, Printer of the New York Weekly Journal, for a Libel, reprint, (New York: John Holt, 1770)]98.239.143.1 (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Bizzare quote
I'm highly suspicious of the quote supplied and the source. Since when did juries in colonial New York have women ("ladies and gentlemen of the jury") ? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)