★ Keep up to date with the latest news - subscribe to the Transcribe Bentham newsletter; Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
18 Mar 1809
Press. Code. Ch. 2. Libel Law as it exists.
II. Justifications
Question 3—
§.3. 3. Ridicule, no bar
1—
3. Ridicule no bar—Why?
Answer 1. By Interdiction
of ridicule impropriety
in conduct & especially
in discourse would, when
most flagrant be prohibited.
2.
In conduct impropriety
is most apt to excite
aversion, in discourse
contempt: the more
absurd, the more ridiculous,
the more
ridiculous the more
contemptible. p. 1.
3.
2. In the Aristotelian
logic divers false
modes of argument
are brought together
by the name of fallacies:
|^^^| proposition
as they are absurd
appear ridiculous. p. 9.
4.
3. Even in mathematics
in the demonstration
of the truth of some
of the propositions,
the opposites are
made to appear absurd
and thence
ridiculous—
Space enclosed by
two right lines. p. 2.
---page break---
II. Justifications.
Question 3.
§.3.3. Ridicule, no bar.
5 or 1—
In controversy on
the subject of religion
whoever is apprehensive
of the weakness of the
propositions he espouses,
is proportionably apprehensive
of their
being absurd, & their
being liable to be made
ridiculous. p. 2.
6 or 2.
To save them from
being represented in their
true light he accordingly
insists that in the
sort of discourse held
on the subject the
very proposition the
propriety of which
is the point in question
the propriety shall be
all along assumed—viz
by means of the reverence
with which he
insists on its being
treated.
7 or 3.
In support of his side
he employs terror to
confound & mislead—
the understanding by
of that passion while
in opposition to it, he
refuses to endure that
his adversary shall
employ ridicule: i.e.
shew that which is
absurd to be absurd.
p. 11.
8 or 4.
Example the Doctrine
of the Trinity, a contradiction
in terms screened
by from ridicule & even
from contestation by force
of |^^^|: contempt the
affection due to the deafness
by argument, aversion
hatred to the defender
by force p. 11.
---page break---
II Justifications.
Question 3.
§.3 .3. Ridicule, no bar.
9 or 4.
4. Conceditur by some
superficial & vestal
resemblance to some
other thing a proposition
not in itself absurd
may be made in some
eyes to appear ridiculous.
But to exempt the
principal proposition
from the imputation
of absurdity, it is
sufficient to point out
the substantial dissimilarity.
3. Conceditur—that by
some attribution which
bears no relation to
the propriety of his
conduct, the person
of a man may be
made ridiculous for
instance the indication
of some disproportion
in some part of his
body.
Any such mode of
argument might
without much inconvenience
be made
the subject of prohibition:
but if unprohibited
it will not
in discussions relative
to public men be
productive of serious
mischief upon the
whole: such infirmities
being as
likely to be found on
one side as on the
other. p. 12.
---page break---
Addendum to May 1804.
Definition. Defamation
not to be constituted by
the mere name of a specific
offence—where by the
context it appears that
an offence of that
description was not really
meant to be imputed. Ex. gr.
1. Murder viz by unkindness
2. Corruption: when of a
kind not punishable.
Addend. 18 May 1809
Punishment why it should
be limited—
Unlimited punishment
coupled with habitual
breach repressive only by
the most timid, moderate
and reflecting characters
where libels would be least
offensive.
The bar boom which it
is broken through by the
boldest where libels
are most effusive
and the exasperation is
encreased by the bar boom.
|
Identifier: | JB/026/044/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 26.
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
1809-03-18 |
1-4, 5 or 1 - 8 or 4, 9 or 4 |
||
|
026 |
law amendment |
||
|
044 |
press code ch. 2 libel law as it ought |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
marginal summary sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
|||
|
john herbert koe |
|||
|
8777 |
|||