1368 records matched your query
04210aam a2200493 i 4500 001 ED840C3AC7F211EAB1F2873797128E48 003 SILO 005 20200717010022 008 190923s2020 nyua b 001 0 eng 010 $a 2019043018 020 $a 0197509193 020 $a 9780197509197 035 $a (OCoLC)1121420019 040 $a DLC $b eng $e rda $c DLC $d OCLCF $d OCLCO $d BDX $d YDX $d YDX $d OCLCO $d OCLCQ $d SILO 042 $a pcc 043 $a n-us--- $a n-us--- 050 00 $a K3253 $b .B57 2020 100 1 $a Bird, Wendell R., $e author. 245 14 $a The revolution in freedoms of press and speech : $b from Blackstone to the First Amendment and Fox's libel act / $c Wendell Bird. 264 1 $a New York, NY : $b Oxford University Press, $c [2020] 300 $a xvi, 391 pages ; $c 25 cm 504 $a Includes bibliographical references and index. 520 $a ""This book discusses the revolutionary broadening of concepts of freedom of press and freedom of speech in Great Britain and in America in the late eighteenth century, in the period that produced state declarations of rights and then the First Amendment and Fox's Libel Act. The conventional view of the history of freedoms of press and speech is that the common law since antiquity defined those freedoms narrowly, and that Sir William Blackstone in 1769, and Lord Chief Justice Mansfield in 17770, faithfully summarized the common law in giving a very narrow definition of those freedoms as mere liberty from prior restraint and not liberty from punishment after something was printed or spoken. This book proposes, to the contrary, that Blackstone carefully selected the narrowest definition that had been suggested in popular essays in the prior seventy years, in order to oppose the growing claims for much broader protections of press and speech. Blackstone misdescribed his summary as an accepted common law definition, which in fact did not exist. A year later, Mansfield inserted a similar definition into the common law for the first time, also misdescribing it as a long-accepted definition, and soon misdescribed the unique rules for prosecuting sedition as having an equally ancient pedigree. Blackstone and Mansfield were not declaring the law as it had long been, but were leading a counter-revolution about the breadth of freedoms of press and speech, and cloaking it as a summary of a narrow common law doctrine that in fact was nonexistent. That conflict of revolutionary view and counter-revolutionary view continues today. For over a century, a neo-Blackstonian view has been dominant, or at least very influential, among historians. Contrary to those narrow claims, this book concludes that the broad understanding of freedoms of press and speech was the dominant context of the First Amendment and of Fox's Libel Act, and that it enjoyed greater historical support.""-- $c Provided by publisher. 610 10 $a United States. $t Constitution. $n 1st Amendment. 600 10 $a Blackstone, William, $d 1723-1780. 600 10 $a Mansfield, William Murray, $c Earl of, $d 1705-1793. 600 17 $a Blackstone, William, $d 1723-1780. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01797567 600 17 $a Mansfield, William Murray, $c Earl of, $d 1705-1793. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst00161667 630 07 $a Constitution (United States) $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01356075 650 0 $a Freedom of the press $z Great Britain. 650 0 $a Freedom of the press $z United States. 650 0 $a Freedom of speech $z Great Britain. 650 0 $a Freedom of speech $z United States. 650 0 $a Freedom of expression $z Great Britain. 650 0 $a Freedom of expression $z United States. 650 7 $a Freedom of expression. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01200263 650 7 $a Freedom of speech. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst00934044 650 7 $a Freedom of the press. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst00934063 651 7 $a Great Britain. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01204623 651 7 $a United States. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01204155 776 08 $i Online version: $a Bird, Wendell. $t Revolution in freedoms of press and speech. $d New York : Oxford University Press, 2020 $z 9780197509210 $w (DLC) 2019043019 941 $a 1 952 $l OVUX522 $d 20210721013633.0 956 $a http://locator.silo.lib.ia.us/search.cgi?index_0=id&term_0=ED840C3AC7F211EAB1F2873797128E48Initiate Another SILO Locator Search