In England that doctrine continued in force until the passage of Mr. Fox’s Libel Bill in 1792. But fifty-eight years earlier the Zenger case (in 1734) had established in principle the freedom of the press in the colonies, by settling the right of juries to find a general verdict in libel cases. We have said “in principle,” for this right, which the colonists soon grew to consider as a part of their common law, was yet in practice more or less nullified in the different colonies according as the Governor was able to impose his will on the courts or was opposed by an intelligent public opinion.
In other words, liberty of the press did not and could not exist in the colonial period, but the people accepted the principle and when they obtained the opportunity incorporated it in Bills of Rights and State Constitutions. The Continental Congress in issuing, on Oct. 21st, 1774, an “Address to the people of Canada” proceeded to detail and enlarge upon the rights to which English subjects were entitled, and among them placed the freedom of the press.[3]
We see the same point made by State after State.
Maryland, 1776: “That the liberty of the press ought to be inviolably preserved.”
Virginia, 1776: “That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.”
Pennsylvania, 1776: “That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and of publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained.”
Georgia, 1777: “Freedom of the press and trial by jury to remain inviolable forever.”
Vermont, 1777: “That the public have the right to freedom of speech and of writing and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained.”
South Carolina, 1778: “That the liberty of the press be inviolably preserved.”
Massachusetts, 1780: “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; and ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth.”