Comments on: The Trial of John Peter Zenger https://hankeringforhistory.com/the-trial-of-john-peter-zenger/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-trial-of-john-peter-zenger Hanker: To have a strong, often restless desire, in this case for--you guessed it--history! Mon, 18 Nov 2013 22:31:13 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.5 By: Grant https://hankeringforhistory.com/the-trial-of-john-peter-zenger/#comment-621 Thu, 31 Jan 2013 02:05:34 +0000 https://www.hankeringforhistory.com/?p=7013#comment-621 Ya, I didn’t explain it well in the article. It’s an old English law thing…

“English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them…. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth…English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff…”

So at the time of this case, it was guilty until proven innocent…

]]> By: roberta4949 https://hankeringforhistory.com/the-trial-of-john-peter-zenger/#comment-620 Thu, 31 Jan 2013 01:59:31 +0000 https://www.hankeringforhistory.com/?p=7013#comment-620 very interesting it can’t be libel if the story is true, what is funny if there were true libel the injuried party could of gone to court to prove he is innocent, trouble is that goes against innocent until proven guilty. but he accused him of libel and in order to shut him down he would have to prove he intentionally printed a lie. very hard to prove a negative. anyway good thing there were still some sensible people on the jury.

]]>