Block 3 Padlet by Ms. Schilens https://padlet.com/sschilens/4ak7vxhcb48c22kq U.S. History 1 Honors en-us 2021-10-11 22:50:26 UTC 2021-10-12 14:52:19 UTC hello@padlet.com The law didn't protect freedom of press because what was posted was regulated. People were allowed to post their ideas, but the government prosecuted after publishing. It didn't matter if it was true or false, if it was seditious it was taken down. ango24mhrd https://padlet.com/sschilens/4ak7vxhcb48c22kq/wish/1810998470 2021-10-12 14:44:07 UTC https://padlet.com/sschilens/4ak7vxhcb48c22kq/wish/1810998470 The case decided that John Peter Zenger was innocent. The case was important because it made debates about freedom of the press. This debate led to the right to criticize the government without punishment. jtran248 https://padlet.com/sschilens/4ak7vxhcb48c22kq/wish/1810999721 2021-10-12 14:44:28 UTC https://padlet.com/sschilens/4ak7vxhcb48c22kq/wish/1810999721 Serena, Frank, and Angelina slombardi246 https://padlet.com/sschilens/4ak7vxhcb48c22kq/wish/1811004591 "Freedom of the Press" in the 1700s meant that the government didn't have to approve of the work before it was published, but after it was published officials could still prosecute the author for seditious libel. Only parliament members had the right to speak their mind, without fearing arrest from the king.]]> 2021-10-12 14:45:41 UTC https://padlet.com/sschilens/4ak7vxhcb48c22kq/wish/1811004591 sbrzyzek24 https://padlet.com/sschilens/4ak7vxhcb48c22kq/wish/1811006250 Kings and Parliament found the truth more dangerous than false accusations because people could easily dismiss lies and claim sources as no longer credible, whereas truth could lead to revolutions which they did not want.]]> 2021-10-12 14:46:08 UTC https://padlet.com/sschilens/4ak7vxhcb48c22kq/wish/1811006250 sdawson241 https://padlet.com/sschilens/4ak7vxhcb48c22kq/wish/1811007560 Seditious Libel was a very serious, maybe even the most serious crime in colonial times that included writings, according to the document. Actions that fell into this crime were speech against the government and criticism. The Star Chamber in England enforced this law and could decide what was allowed or not. It's purpose was to eliminate challenges to the King's power and prevent revolution.]]> 2021-10-12 14:46:30 UTC https://padlet.com/sschilens/4ak7vxhcb48c22kq/wish/1811007560 ebozic24 https://padlet.com/sschilens/4ak7vxhcb48c22kq/wish/1811008712 Seditious libel was a crime "of the printed word", or in the press. The Star Chamber defined the crime as insults to the government, its laws, and its officials, which could influence people to turn against the government.  ]]> 2021-10-12 14:46:46 UTC https://padlet.com/sschilens/4ak7vxhcb48c22kq/wish/1811008712 Joshua H jhaikins24 https://padlet.com/sschilens/4ak7vxhcb48c22kq/wish/1811011281 I personally believe that this is a tricky subject because whether or not something is "malicious" is entirely up to the reader or the author. If a reader gets offended by something that is actually just polite criticism then they can label it as "malicious" and sue. This is why I believe that government officials should be able to sue "malicious" work but only if it is reviewed by other unbiased individuals]]> 2021-10-12 14:47:26 UTC https://padlet.com/sschilens/4ak7vxhcb48c22kq/wish/1811011281 Cian Joseph cjoseph241 https://padlet.com/sschilens/4ak7vxhcb48c22kq/wish/1811028912 I think you should be able to sue misinformation because the more we limit misinformation on the internet and elsewhere the cleaner the knowledge and the more access we will have to worthwhile content.]]> 2021-10-12 14:52:19 UTC https://padlet.com/sschilens/4ak7vxhcb48c22kq/wish/1811028912