The Expositor: Libelous of the deepest dye?

[Areabird]

I'd like to discuss the content of the Expositor and whether or not the Nauvoo City Council correctly designated the paper a public nuisance. Was there actually anything libelous written in the paper? Was their reasoning sound? I have included a link to the full Expositor text.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Nauvoo_Expositor_Full_Text

I'd rather not talk about the legality of the press' destruction. We have discussed that in a separate thread. Let's focus on whether the decision to destroy the press based on solid facts and sound reasoning or if it was done primarily on emotion.

Quotes from the city council meeting that resulted in the order to destroy the press:

He then read from the constitution of the United States on the freed of the press, and said "We are willing they should publish the truth; but it is unlawful to publish libels.--Councilor Taylor, History of the Church, p. 445.

If we pass only a fine or imprisonment, have we any confidence they will desist? None at all. We have found these men covenant breakers with God...shall they be suffered to go on and bring a mob upon us...I had rather my blood be spilled at once, and would like to have the press removed as soon as the ordinance would allow....--Alderman Orson Spencer, History of the Church, p. 446.

He considered the publication of the Expositor as much murderous at heart as David was before the death of Uriah.--Councilor Phineas Richards, History of the Church, p. 447.

[Sevenbak]

I'd like to discuss the content of the Expositor and whether or not the Nauvoo City Council correctly designated the paper a public nuisance. Was there actually anything libelous written in the paper? Was their reasoning sound? I have included a link to the full Expositor text.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Nauvoo_Expositor_Full_Text

I'd rather not talk about the legality of the press' destruction. We have discussed that in a separate thread. Let's focus on whether the decision to destroy the press based on solid facts and sound reasoning or if it was done primarily on emotion.

Quotes from the city council meeting that resulted in the order to destroy the press:

He then read from the constitution of the United States on the freed of the press, and said "We are willing they should publish the truth; but it is unlawful to publish libels.--Councilor Taylor, History of the Church, p. 445.

If we pass only a fine or imprisonment, have we any confidence they will desist? None at all. We have found these men covenant breakers with God...shall they be suffered to go on and bring a mob upon us...I had rather my blood be spilled at once, and would like to have the press removed as soon as the ordinance would allow....--Alderman Orson Spencer, History of the Church, p. 446.

He considered the publication of the Expositor as much murderous at heart as David was before the death of Uriah.--Councilor Phineas Richards, History of the Church, p. 447.

I don't know the exact contents of the Expositor, but I've always found it interesting in the discussion of this seemingly bad breech of Constitutional freedoms, to look at the actions of Abraham Lincoln. He shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers in his own northern states, along with destroying many printing presses and imprisoned newspaper editors and owners.

[Duncan]

Not to mention the destruction of W.W.Phelps' press in July of 1833 in Hiram, Ohio by the anti-Mormon mob.

[Obiwan]

Ya, I always laugh when the anti's try to place MODERN "American" standards on Freedom of the press (or other issues), when it just wasn't so back then.

Plus, governments have been "regulating" things all the time. Sometimes it's necessary, and sometimes it actually is wrong being an abuse of power. Personally, the press was causing serious problems for the people of Nauvoo, thus it was rightly taken down in my view. And I would say that even if I wasn't mormon. Have your free speech slimballs, but your not going to have a bully pulpit in my town which also spreads out infecting outsiders to do even further harm to my town and townsfolk.

A town, a state, and even a country can determine it's own standards and morality, and absolutely enforce it. I mean for heavens sake, after the mormons left the local bigots burned down a Temple dedicated to the Most High God, and then God leveled it with a Tornado. So, I don't know.... You tell us if that "press" was really a "problem" enough to absolutely destroy into the ground?

[Areabird]

Ya, I always laugh when the anti's try to place MODERN "American" standards on Freedom of the press (or other issues), when it just wasn't so back then.

Plus, governments have been "regulating" things all the time. Sometimes it's necessary, and sometimes it actually is wrong being an abuse of power. Personally, the press was causing serious problems for the people of Nauvoo, thus it was rightly taken down in my view. And I would say that even if I wasn't mormon. Have your free speech slimballs, but your not going to have a bully pulpit in my town which also spreads out infecting outsiders to do even further harm to my town and townsfolk.

A town, a state, and even a country can determine it's own standards and morality, and absolutely enforce it. I mean for heavens sake, after the mormons left the local bigots burned down a Temple dedicated to the Most High God, and then God leveled it with a Tornado. So, I don't know.... You tell us if that "press" was really a "problem" enough to absolutely destroy into the ground?

What were the specific problems the Expositor was causing? Please provide examples.

[Areabird]

I don't know the exact contents of the Expositor, but I've always found it interesting in the discussion of this seemingly bad breech of Constitutional freedoms, to look at the actions of Abraham Lincoln. He shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers in his own northern states, along with destroying many printing presses and imprisoned newspaper editors and owners.

Okay...but this thread is about the specific items in the Expositor that caused the city council to deem it a public nuisance. You say you don't know the exact contents (even though I provided a link in the OP) and yet you want to justify its destruction. Why do you think it should have been destroyed when you don't even know what the newspaper said?

[Confidential Informant]

Okay...but this thread is about the specific items in the Expositor that caused the city council to deem it a public nuisance. You say you don't know the exact contents (even though I provided a link in the OP) and yet you want to justify its destruction. Why do you think it should have been destroyed when you don't even know what the newspaper said?

Dude, let it go. Joseph was practicing polygamy and the Expositor exposed it. So what? Like Wade said in your last threat, it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Joseph was a prophet or whether or not plural marriage was a revealed tenant of the faith. The whole episode represents nothing more than poor political judgment on Joseph's part. That's all. No one care (except apparently you) any more.

C.I.

[spinner]

Not to mention the destruction of W.W.Phelps' press in July of 1833 in Hiram, Ohio by the anti-Mormon mob.

Your point apparently being that two wrongs make a right?

[MichaelW]

Dude, let it go. Joseph was practicing polygamy and the Expositor exposed it. So what? Like Wade said in your last threat, it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Joseph was a prophet or whether or not plural marriage was a revealed tenant of the faith. The whole episode represents nothing more than poor political judgment on Joseph's part. That's all. No one care (except apparently you) any more.

C.I.

I think whether The Expositor was accurate is an extraordinarily important fact. For one, I was taught growing up that The Expositor was entirely false, and would imagine that's still taught far more often than not.

[Lstinthwrld]

Ya, I always laugh when the anti's try to place MODERN "American" standards on Freedom of the press (or other issues), when it just wasn't so back then.

Plus, governments have been "regulating" things all the time. Sometimes it's necessary, and sometimes it actually is wrong being an abuse of power. Personally, the press was causing serious problems for the people of Nauvoo, thus it was rightly taken down in my view. And I would say that even if I wasn't mormon. Have your free speech slimballs, but your not going to have a bully pulpit in my town which also spreads out infecting outsiders to do even further harm to my town and townsfolk.

A town, a state, and even a country can determine it's own standards and morality, and absolutely enforce it. I mean for heavens sake, after the mormons left the local bigots burned down a Temple dedicated to the Most High God, and then God leveled it with a Tornado. So, I don't know.... You tell us if that "press" was really a "problem" enough to absolutely destroy into the ground?

Wow seriously? How can you as a mormon who as a church are always complaining about the personal rights of mormons and how you are always being persecuted and having your personal rights infringed how can you even think something like this much less actually wright/vocalize this?

[Duncan]

Your point apparently being that two wrongs make a right?

I was just mentioning that the Church had it done to us before and critics seem to forget that!

[spinner]

I was just mentioning that the Church had it done to us before and critics seem to forget that!

So was it OK when Phelps' press was destroyed? Was it OK when the Expositor press was destroyed?

Unless two wrongs make a right, I don't see how this comprises a defense of the destruction of the Expositor press.

[Scott Lloyd]

I spoke some months go to a legal scholar who was of the opinion not only that the Expositor was libelous, but that the action taken by the Nauvoo City Council for remedy was the most charitable under the circumstances. Had the city fathers gone after the newspaper's owners in a civil suit, it would have exposed the owners to substantial losses. As it was, the only loss they suffered was the destruction of the press, and the Nauvoo officials were quite willing to stand the cost of reimbursement for the property damage.

[sethpayne]

I spoke some months go to a legal scholar who was of the opinion not only that the Expositor was libelous, but that the action taken by the Nauvoo City Council for remedy was the most charitable under the circumstances. Had the city fathers gone after the newspaper's owners in a civil suit, it would have exposed the owners to substantial losses. As it was, the only loss they suffered was the destruction of the press, and the Nauvoo officials were quite willing to stand the cost of reimbursement for the property damage.

How can it be libelous when they were reporting what was true?

Maybe I am missing something but I see nothing in the Expositor that was in any way, a lie.

[LeSellers]

How can it be libelous when they were reporting what was true?

We, in the XXI, have lost the root of "libel". People of the XIX had not, although the more modern usage had begun to appear.

LI'BEL, n. [L. libellus, a little book, from liber, a book, from the sense of bark, and this from stripping separating. Hence liber, a book, and liber, free, are the same word.]

1. A defamatory writing, L. libellus, famosus. Hence, the epithet being omitted, libel expresses the same thing. Any book, pamphlet, writing or picture, containing representations, maliciously made or published, tending to bring a person into contempt, or expose him to public hatred and derision. The communication of such defamatory writing to a single person, is considered in law a publication. It is immaterial with respect to the essence of a libel, whether the matter of it is true or false, since the provocation and not the falsity is the thing to be punished criminally. But in a civil action, a libel must appear to be false, as well as scandalous.

In a more extensive sense, any blasphemous, treasonable or immoral writing or picture made public, is a libel, and punishable by law.

2. In the civil law, and in courts of admiralty, a declaration or charge in writing exhibited in court, particularly against a ship or goods, for violating the laws of trade or of revenue.

LI'BEL, v.t.

1. To defame or expose to public hatred and contempt by a writing or picture; to lampoon.

Some wicked wits have libeled all the fair.

2. To exhibit a charge against any thing in court, particularly against a ship or goods, for a violation of the laws of trade or revenue.

LI'BEL, v.i. To spread defamation, written or printed; with against. He libels against the peers of the realm. [Not now in use.]

By the XIX use of the word, the Expositor was definitely libelous. Joseph and all Nauvoo spoke XIX English, not what you and I speak nowadays.

Maybe I am missing something but I see nothing in the Expositor that was in any way, a lie.

Whether it was a lie or not, it was "scandalous" at the very least, and its sole purpose for existence was to defame and expose to public ridicule Joseph Smith. That is impossible to deny.

It was therefor libelous. QED

Lehi

[Areabird]

I spoke some months go to a legal scholar who was of the opinion not only that the Expositor was libelous, but that the action taken by the Nauvoo City Council for remedy was the most charitable under the circumstances. Had the city fathers gone after the newspaper's owners in a civil suit, it would have exposed the owners to substantial losses. As it was, the only loss they suffered was the destruction of the press, and the Nauvoo officials were quite willing to stand the cost of reimbursement for the property damage.

Okay. What specifically did the legal scholar say was libelous? I posted a link to the entire paper. Instead of just repeating that it was libelous, please provide examples from the Expositor itself. Here is the link again to make it easy:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Nauvoo_Expositor_Full_Text

If you read the History of the Church you will see that they city council considered suing but decided the publishers didn't have enough money to make it worth it.

"Councilor Hyrum Smith referred to the mortgages and property of the proprietors of the Expositor, and thought there would be little chance of collecting damages for libels" History of the Church, p. 446.

http://books.google.com/books?id=87gUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA567&lpg=PA567&dq=city+council+writ+expositor&source=bl&ots=j_bOTxt9Jy&sig=NFFPVDdBj4IK3TT60QFabljxB5U&hl=en&ei=xp6QSuK8ON-TtgeGmOXOBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=city%20council%20writ%20expositor&f=false

[Areabird]

dbl post.

[Areabird]

We, in the XXI, have lost the root of "libel". People of the XIX had not, although the more modern usage had begun to appear.

By the XIX use of the word, the Expositor was definitely libelous. Joseph and all Nauvoo spoke XIX English, not what you and I speak nowadays.

Whether it was a lie or not, it was "scandalous" at the very least, and its sole purpose for existence was to defame and expose to public ridicule Joseph Smith. That is impossible to deny.

It was therefor libelous. QED

Lehi

So you're saying it depends on what the definition of "is" is?

You still haven't pointed to anything specifically in the Expositor to prove your point. You're talking about the paper as a whole without backing it up. Have you read the Expositor or are you just dismissing it out of hand?

[Analytics]

Whether it was a lie or not, it was "scandalous" at the very least, and its sole purpose for existence was to defame and expose to public ridicule Joseph Smith. That is impossible to deny.

It was therefor libelous. QED

So in essence, you are claiming that by 19th century standards, whenever a public figure was engaged in a scandal, it was illegal for newspapers to report the scandal because doing so would be libelous. Am I reading you correctly?

[LeSellers]

So you're saying it depends on what the definition of "is" is?

No, it depends on what the people using the word "libelous" meant when they used the word.

I have heard people use the word "peruse" to mean "skim" or "scan". Were I to hold them to the true definition of the word, I would expect them to be able to converse at length on the subject at hand. But they would be unable to do so.

If Joseph called the Expositor a libelous rag, and he meant, as would all of his contemporaries, that it was designed to scandalize the public and to reveal (even were it truth) facts in a way that would provoke public unrest, it is hypocrisy to use a more modern connotation of the word and then read him as saying what we XXI USmericans would mean using the same word. That is chronocentrism at its worst.

You still haven't pointed to anything specifically in the Expositor to prove your point. You're talking about the paper as a whole without backing it up. Have you read the Expositor or are you just dismissing it out of hand?

I have read it, and any specifics would not advance my part of this argument which has not focused on the content, but on the word "libelous". Even if the entire thing had been true, the paper would still have been, in XIX legal parlance, a libelous rag.

As such, it would have been a "public nuisance" and, according to the laws of Illinois and the Nauvoo City Charter, should have been abated, as it was.

You can argue 'til you're blue in the face, that the charter should have been repealed, that Joseph was a monocrat, and that "freedom of the press" should have extended to the Expositor. None of your arguments take into account the fact that in 1844, what the city counsel did was legal and expected.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

So in essence, you are claiming that by 19th century standards, whenever a public figure was engaged in a scandal, it was illegal for newspapers to report the scandal because doing so would be libelous. Am I reading you correctly?

Almost.

The definition of "libel" included "provoking". Was the purpose of the Expositor to "provoke"?

Any fair reading demands the answer be "yes". And, if we include subsequent events, i.e., the murder of Joseph and Hyrum, and the words of at least one of their murderers that the whole thing had been concocted to that very end, then there is no other possible reading, fair or foul.

Lehi

[Areabird]

No, it depends on what the people using the word "libelous" meant when they used the word.

I have heard people use the word "peruse" to mean "skim" or "scan". Were I to hold them to the true definition of the word, I would expect them to be able to converse at length on the subject at hand. But they would be unable to do so.

If Joseph called the Expositor a libelous rag, and he meant, as would all of his contemporaries, that it was designed to scandalize the public and to reveal (even were it truth) facts in a way that would provoke public unrest, it is hypocrisy to use a more modern connotation of the word and then read him as saying what we XXI USmericans would mean using the same word. That is chronocentrism at its worst.

I have read it, and any specifics would not advance my part of this argument which has not focused on the content, but on the word "libelous". Even if the entire thing had been true, the paper would still have been, in XIX legal parlance, a libelous rag.

As such, it would have been a "public nuisance" and, according to the laws of Illinois and the Nauvoo City Charter, should have been abated, as it was.

You can argue 'til you're blue in the face, that the charter should have been repealed, that Joseph was a monocrat, and that "freedom of the press" should have extended to the Expositor. None of your arguments take into account the fact that in 1844, what the city counsel did was legal and expected.

Lehi

So which specific parts of the Expositor did what you say above (in bold)? You're hiding behind definitions instead of engaging the thrust of the argument.

[Analytics]

You can argue 'til you're blue in the face, that the charter should have been repealed, that Joseph was a monocrat, and that "freedom of the press" should have extended to the Expositor. None of your arguments take into account the fact that in 1844, what the city counsel did was legal and expected.

It sounds like you are claiming that 19th century Americans viewed the Constitutional Right of a free press the same way that 21st century liberals view the right to keep and bear arms: as a right that local governments can legislate out of existence and thus aren't really rights at all.

Thomas Ford was a justice on the Illinois State Supreme Court in the 19th Century. As such, I think he has a better handle on what the law was there and then than you do. According to him what the council did wasn't "legal and expected", but rather,

It appeared clearly both from the complaints of the citizens and the acknowledgments of the Mormon committee that the whole proceedings of the mayor, the common council, and the municipal court, were irregular and illegal, and not to be endured in a free country.

[Analytics]

Almost.

The definition of "libel" included "provoking". Was the purpose of the Expositor to "provoke"?

Any fair reading demands the answer be "yes". And, if we include subsequent events, i.e., the murder of Joseph and Hyrum, and the words of at least one of their murderers that the whole thing had been concocted to that very end, then there is no other possible reading, fair or foul.

Lehi

The Expositor didn't provoke the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith--Joseph Smith's illegal destruction of the press is what provoked his death.

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about whether or not the subtlties of your argument here is in fact representative of the laws of those times. As I'm not a 19th century lawyer, and I'm not qualified to evaluate such things. I'd rather trust the opinion of Thomas Ford who was a legal expert of that time and place.

[LeSellers]

The Expositor didn't provoke the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith--Joseph Smith's illegal destruction of the press is what provoked his death.

So you continue to claim. However, there are those who think otherwise, Thomas Ford notwithstanding.

He who picks up one end of a stick picks up the other. The Expositor set off a chain of events that led directly to Carthage. The Prophet's enemies knew this when they founded the paper, and relied on such a chain to achieve their end: the murder of Joseph. That they failed to destroy the Church of Jesus Christ, another and greater end, was wholly through the providence of God.

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about whether or not the subtlties of your argument here is in fact representative of the laws of those times. As I'm not a 19th century lawyer, and I'm not qualified to evaluate such things. I'd rather trust the opinion of Thomas Ford who was a legal expert of that time and place.

Experts disagree.

While I am not a XIX lawyer, I can read a dictionary.

Lehi