LIBERTY OF THE PRESS - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

LIBERTY OF THE PRESSAuthored

The Law Mind • 1262 words

Definition

The right to publish, print, and disseminate information, opinions, and commentary free from prior governmental restraint or censorship. In its classical formulation, liberty of the press means that the government may not suppress or license publication in advance; it does not mean that a publisher escapes legal accountability after publication for content that is defamatory, seditious, obscene, or otherwise unlawful. The term is older than its modern constitutional successor — "freedom of the press" — and carries a more specific doctrinal weight rooted in the common law tradition and early republican constitutional theory.

Two distinct (though related) concepts travel under this heading:

1. Freedom from prior restraint: The government cannot require a license to publish, issue an injunction halting publication before it occurs, or otherwise condition the right to print on official approval.

2. Qualified accountability after publication: Publishers remain subject to civil and criminal liability for what they print — historically including seditious libel, blasphemy, and defamation — but that liability is assessed after the fact, not prevented in advance.

---

Common Language

Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The freedom of the press to publish news, information, and opinions without government interference or censorship; broadly synonymous in everyday speech with "press freedom."

Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "The right of printing and publishing whatever one pleases, without restriction from the government, as defined and protected by the first amendment of the United States constitution and by various state constitutions."

The everyday use of "liberty of the press" — and its modern equivalent "freedom of the press" — suggests an absolute or near-absolute right to publish anything. The legal-historical meaning is considerably narrower: the liberty was defined primarily as freedom from prior restraint, not freedom from all legal consequence. A publisher who printed seditious or defamatory matter remained fully liable; the protection was against the licensing system and the injunction, not against prosecution or civil suit. Researchers who treat the term as equivalent to a modern First Amendment absolute will misread eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sources.

---

Common Confusion

LIBERTY OF THE PRESS vs. FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: These terms are largely interchangeable in modern usage but carry different historical registers. "Liberty of the press" is the older formulation, rooted in Blackstone and early American constitutionalism, and emphasizes the specific no-prior-restraint principle. "Freedom of the press" is the twentieth-century constitutional idiom, shaped by First Amendment doctrine developed through the Supreme Court, and encompasses a broader set of protections including reporter's privilege, access rights, and protection against post-publication liability in matters of public concern. Researchers working in sources before roughly 1900 should expect "liberty of the press" and understand its more limited scope. Sources after 1925 will predominantly use "freedom of the press" with expanded meaning.

LIBERTY OF THE PRESS vs. LIBERTY OF SPEECH: These are companion rights, often enumerated together, but they are not identical. Liberty of speech protects the spoken word; liberty of the press protects the printed and published word. Historically, the two were treated as distinct because the mechanisms of suppression differed — licensing laws and taxes on publications were press-specific restraints. Modern First Amendment doctrine largely collapses the distinction, but the separation matters in historical research.

---

Why It Matters in Research

The single most important trap in historical sources is conflating "liberty of the press" with modern press freedom doctrine. Nineteenth-century dictionary definitions, treatises, and court opinions consistently define the liberty as protection from prior restraint while explicitly preserving post-publication liability — including for seditious libel, which was not definitively constitutionalized out of American law until the twentieth century. A researcher reading an 1830 case upholding "liberty of the press" may find the court simultaneously affirming the government's power to prosecute the same publisher criminally.

The Blackstonian formulation — prior restraint is prohibited, but liability after publication is lawful — was the dominant American view well into the nineteenth century and persists in the historical sources on the Law Mind shelf. Rapalje & Lawrence reflects this tradition directly. Researchers should not assume that citations to historical "liberty of the press" doctrine support modern propositions about prior restraint law, let alone reporter's privilege or shield law protections, which are twentieth-century developments that post-date all historical shelf sources.

Jurisdictional variation is also significant in the historical record. State constitutions often guaranteed liberty of the press in language slightly different from the First Amendment, and state courts developed their own press liberty doctrines independently until federal constitutional incorporation progressively nationalized the field in the twentieth century. Historical state court sources must be read against the applicable state constitutional provision, not the federal text.

For corpus researchers, the jump from "liberty of the press" entries in historical dictionaries to the encyclopedia entries on freedom of the press requires awareness that the intervening doctrinal evolution is substantial. The constitutional encyclopedia entries on the Law Mind shelf address the modern framework; historical dictionary sources address the classical framework. They do not describe the same legal landscape.

---

Historical Dictionary Support

Rapalje & Lawrence defines liberty of the press as "the right of printing and publishing whatever one pleases without restriction from the government, subject to liability for the abuse of such liberty." This is a faithful restatement of the Blackstonian synthesis that dominated Anglo-American legal thought through the nineteenth century: freedom from prior restraint paired with accountability for abuse. The definition is clean and technically accurate for its era but requires a researcher to unpack both halves — the right and the residual liability — to use it correctly.

What Rapalje & Lawrence does not address, and what no nineteenth-century dictionary entry on this term could address, is the subsequent transformation of the doctrine. The incorporation of the First Amendment against the states, the erosion and eventual near-abolition of seditious libel as a viable legal theory, the development of reporter's privilege, the creation of shield law frameworks, and the elaboration of the prior restraint doctrine well beyond its Blackstonian origins are all twentieth-century developments that fall entirely outside the historical shelf. Researchers should treat historical dictionary definitions as accurate snapshots of the doctrine as it stood at the time of publication, not as descriptions of current law.

---

Jurisdictional Note

State constitutional provisions protecting liberty or freedom of the press vary in text and have generated independent state court doctrine that does not always mirror federal First Amendment analysis. Some state constitutions contain explicit "responsibility for abuse" clauses tracking the Blackstonian formulation. Researchers working on press-related issues in state law contexts — particularly for periods before federal incorporation — must consult the applicable state constitutional text and state court authorities rather than assuming federal doctrine controls.

---

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

Freedom of the Press — Prior Restraints, Reporter's Privilege, and Access Rights (Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia) — addresses the modern constitutional framework governing prior restraints, the core doctrinal area to which the classical "liberty of the press" concept corresponds.

Freedom of the Press — Shield Laws, Source Protection, and Press Access (Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia) — addresses protections that post-date the historical formulation of this term and represent the expanded modern understanding of press freedom.

---

LIBERTY OF THE PRESSsubentry

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

The question what are the respective pow- ers and duties of court and jury in trials of indictments for libel has given rise to one of the most interesting of legal controver- sies. For the history of the controversy upon the right of the jury to determine both law and fact in criminal cases, and the American and English authorities, see

LIBERTY OF THE PRESSsubentry

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

The right to print and publish the truth, from good motives and for justifiable ends. 3 Johns. Cas. 394. The right in the publisher of a newspaper to print whatever he chooses without any previous license, but subject to be held responsible therefor to exactly the same extent that any one else would be respon- sible. 18 W. Va. 183. The right to print without any previous license, subject to the consequences of the law. 8 Term 481. The right to publish in the first instance as the publisher pleases, and without con- trol; but for proceeding to unwarrantable lengths he is answerable both to the com- munity and to the individual. 4 Yeates 267. Liberty of the press means not only liberty to publish, but complete immunity from legal censure and punishment for the publication, so long as it is not harmful in its character, when tested by such stan- dards as the law affords; Cooley, Const. Lim. [423]. See Story, Const. §§ 1870, 1888, 1891. It is said to consist in this "that neither courts of justice nor any judges whatever are authorized to take notice of writings intended for the press, but are confined to those which are actually print- ed." De Lome, Const. 254. At common law liberty of the press was neither well protected nor well defined, and not until after many struggles was it so far recognized in England as to permit the publication of current news with out the permission of government censors. May, Const. Hist. c. 7, 9, 10. The general publication of parliamentary debates dates only from the Ameri- can revolution, and even then was considered a technical breach of privilege Cooley, Const. Lim, [418]. A fair publication of a debate is now heid to be privileged, and comments on public legislative proceedings are not actionable, so long as a jury shall think them honest and made in a fair spirit, and such as are justified by the circumstances; L R. 4 Q. B. 78. In the colonial period the English practice was followed in this country. In 1649 the general lawa were published for the first time in Massachusetts under protest by the magistrates, and in Virginis and New York printing was specially prohibited. The constitutional convention of 1787 sat with closed doors, as did the senate until 1793. By the constitu- tion liberty of the press is secured against restraint in the United States, but he who uses it is respon sible for its abuse. Like the right to keep firearms, it will not protect the user from annoyance and destruction caused by him; 3 Pick. 318. The Sedi- tion Act, July 14, 1798, attempted a restriction upon the freedom of the press, but by its terms it wa self-limited; its constitutionality was always doubt ed by a large party, and its impolicy was beyond question. See Whart. St. Tr. 833, 650, 088: 2 Rand. Life of Jefferson 417; 5 Hildr. Hist. U. S. 247; Ord. Const. Leg. Liberty of the press is allowed in publish- ing (1) naked and impartial statements of judicial proceedings involving a trial and not a mere ex parte examination; and when the nature of the case does not ren- der it improper that the same should be published, or constitute such a publication an offence at law; 4 Sandf. 21, 120; 5 id. 256; 10 Ohio St. 548; 4 Wend. 138;2 Hill 513; (2) in publishing news; Ord. Const. Leg. 239. Acts which have been held not in conflict with the constitu- tional guaranty of liberty of the press are:-An act making the publication of s grossly false and inaccurate report of the proceedings of any court a criminal of fence and a contempt; 17 Mont. 140; an act taxing the selling of Sunday papers; 17 Tex. App. 253; an act forbidding the use of the mails for obscene matter; 45 Fed. Rep. 414; or for printed matter deemed by the government to be injurious to the people; 148 U. S. 110; 96 id. 727; or for sending threatening letters; 135 Mo. 450 (see LIBEL); an act forbidding the publi- cation and sale of a newspaper devoted to the publication of scandal and immorality; 136 Mo. 227; an act directed against blas- phemy; 20 Pick. 206; and a by-law of the Associated Press of New York, prohibiting a member from receiving or publishing the regular news despatches of any other news organization covering a like territory; 136 N. Y. 333, aff'g 15 N. Y. Suppl. 887. A city cannot pass an ordinance declar ing a certain named newspaper a publio nuisance and forbidding its sale; 228. W. Rep. (Tex.) 928; nor can the advertisement of a dramatic production be prevented where the play is based upon the facts of a pending trial, as disclosed at a prelimi- nary hearing and the coroner's inquest; 44 Pac. Rep. (Cal.) 458; and the constitutional guaranty of liberty of the press will not protect one who breaks a contract with a purchaser not to publish or be connected with another paper in the same locality; 24 8. E. Rep. (N. C.) 812. As to whether an injunction may be is sued to restrain the publication of an al- leged libel, see LIBEL. See, generally, NEWSPAPER; LETTER;

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In