okay.. so theres this guy. named peter zenger♥.. lol. jkjk. well i just need to know WHY this PETER ZENGER guy was not guilty. i have down tht he wasnt guilty because the newspapers criticism of william cosby's government was true..

and myy question is...



aim- xocutypie344xo

talk to me!

3 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yup. "Slander" meant "unkind words" in Jolly old England. It meant "untrue, unkind words" here. Our press was free as long as they told the truth.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Randy
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    A notable part of the case is that Andrew Hamilton (Zenger’s defense attorney from Philadelphia) challenged the constitutionality of the crimes for which his client was being prosecuted. It was one of the first times in American history in which a lawyer challenged the laws rather than the innocence of his clients. The jurors were stunned and didn't know how to, or even if they were allowed to, address whether the law itself was "legal."

    At the end of the trial on August 5, 1735, the twelve New York jurors returned a verdict of "not guilty" on the charge of publishing "seditious libels," despite the Governor's hand-picked judges presiding. Hamilton had successfully argued that Zenger's articles were not libelous because they were based on fact.

    It is interesting to me that the jurors were unsure of whether they could address the legality of the law (known today as jury nullification) because this was a power of the jury since the times o magna Carta of 1215. In the arly years of the United States juries were often charged by the judge to review not only the facts of the case by the applicability of the law, that is, formally addressing jury nullification. Beginning in the 1880s the legal system began to change and today, judges become incensed if they are aware that juries are judging the law even though this is the right of the jury.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Slander is oral communication and libel is written communication. The basis of both is the same except one is written and one is spoken. The defense of both is the same, if you cannot prove what you said is correct, then you lose.

    I hate it when people give their answers right out of Wikipedia and don't give credit, that is plagarism.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.