FT WEftDE GenColl THE HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION OF UNABRIDGED FREEDOM OF SPEECH, | >% . BY THEODORE SCHROEDER. A chapter from “Obscene Literature and Constitutional Law A Republished from Central Law Journal , March , iqio. FOR FREE-SPEECH LEAGUE, 120 Lexington ave. New YORK. SECOND EDITION. Sir Leslie Stephens on Toleration. “The doctrine of toleration requires a positive as well as a neg¬ ative statement. It is not only wrong to burn a man on account of his creed, but it is right to encourage the open avowal and defence of every opinion sincerely maintained. Every man who says frankly and fully what he thinks is so far doing a public service. We should be grateful to him for attacking most unsparingly our most cherished opinions.**** “Toleration, in fact, as I have understood it, is a necessary co¬ relative to a respect for truthfulness. So far as we can lay it down as an absolute principle that every man should be thoroughly trustworthy and therefore truthful, we are bound to respect every manifestation of truthfulness. ****A man must not be punished for openly avowing any principles whatever.**** ‘ ‘Toleration implies that a man is to be allowed to profess and maintain any principles that he pleases; not that he should be allowed in all cases to act upon his principles, especially to act upon them to the injury of others. No limitation whatever need be put upon this principle in the case supposed. I, for one, am fully prepared to listen to any arguments for the propriety of theft or murder, or if it be pos¬ sible of immorality in the abstract. No doctrine, however well es¬ tablished, should be protected from discussion. The reasons have been already assigned. If, as a matter of fact, any appreciable number of persons is so inclined to advocate murder on principle, I should wish them to state their opinions openly and fearlessly, because I should think that the shortest way of exploding the principle and of ascertaining the true causes of such a perversion of moral sentiment. Such a state of things implies the existence of evils which cannot be really cured till their cause is known, and the shortest way to discover the cause is to give a hearing to the alleged reasons.” From “The Suppression of Poisonous Opinions” in The Nineteenth Century , March and April, 1883. THE HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION OF UNABRIDGED FREEDOM OF SPEECH THEODORE SCHROEDER. II A chapter from “Obscene Literature and Constitutional Law. Republished from Central Law Journal , March , iqio. FOR FREE-SPEECH LEAGUE, 120 Lexington Ave. New York. ! . $4-3 \<\\0 Giti Auifcot ■ (Porson) m 29i9iy o <1 * f « • THE HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION OF “FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS.” The purpose is to re-interpret our constitutional guarantee for an unabridged freedom of speech and of the press, by the historical or scientific method, and with special reference to the specific issue raised by the judicial dogmatism thereon and my different conception of how that phrase ought to be interpreted. To clarify the issues, 1 restate these contradictory propositions,, so the reader may have them constantly in mind during the following discussion. My contention as to the meaning of a constitutionally guar¬ anteed right to unabridged freedom of speech and of the press, is this: No matter upon what subject, nor how injurious to the public welfare any particular idea thereon may be deemed to be, the constitutional right is violated whenever anyone is not legally free to express any such or other sentiments, either; First, because prevented in advance by a legally created censorship, or monopoly in the use of the press, or by other governmental power, or; Second, because in the effort to secure publicity for any idea whatever, the equality of natural opportunity is destroyed, in that some, by subsequent legal penalties or other legal limi¬ tations, are deterred, or are impeded, in the use of the ordinary and natural methods of reaching the public, on the same legal terms, as these are permitted to any person for the presentation of any other idea, or; Third , because the natural opportunity of all is abridged by some statutory impediment, such as taxes upon the dissemina¬ tion of information placed upon all intellectual intercourse, as such, or on all of a particular class, or; Fourth, because inequalities in State-created, or State- supported, opportunity is legalized, so that, in the effort to secure publicity for any sentiments and merely because of their 3 nature, literary style, or supposed evil tendency, any one is discriminated against, either by law, or for any cause by any arbitrary exercise of official discretion, in the use of such State- created or State-supported facilities, or; Fifth , because after expressing one’s sentiments one is by law liable to punishment, merely for having uttered disap¬ proved thoughts; Provided always, that the prohibition, abridgment, discrim- r'"tion, subsequent punishment, or other legal disability or