Tobin wrote:Wrong. If he felt there was wrong-doing going on, he certainly could have gone to the state officials with his accusations. They certainly weren't friendly with Joseph Smith. That is not what he did.Equality wrote:Law's only crime was breaking omerta, the law of silence. I suppose you would also condemn Sammy the Bull Gravano as being not credible, and a troublemaker. At least he was from the perspective of those on whom he informed. I mean, the mob bosses already knew they were committing crimes, so Gravano's telling the cops about it wasn't whistleblowing; it was troublemaking. Right?
And that is entirely irrelevant as to whether the claims of fact in the Nauvoo Expositor were true. The dichotomy you are presenting---either tell governmental authorities or publish it in a newspaper---exists nowhere in American law or tradition. In fact, the suggestion that it was somehow devious to publish in a newspaper the scandalous personal conduct of a public official is contrary to the purposes of freedom of the press.
Your fatuous reasoning would mean that Woodward and Bernstein were somehow unethical for their investigative journalism into the Watergate affair, which led to the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon. Or for another example of a con man exposed by the press first and then law enforcement, there is Charles Ponzi. The Boston Post broke the story that Ponzi's company was hopelessly insolvent, and thus could not possibly pay off the investors who were being defrauded. Ponzi was indicted after the newspaper story was printed. So as with Watergate, according to your ethical standards of journalism, it was wrong for the Post to publish this story---even though in both of these examples and in many others, it is the publication of the story that forces law enforcement into action.
The membership were not a concern actually. They already had seen the publication and rejected it. The concern and why it was shutdown was it would incite those outside the church.
Kind of odd for people looking to incite the enemies of the Mormons to state the following in their paper:
We all verily believe, and many of us know of a surety, that the religion of the Latter Day Saints, as originally taught by Joseph Smith, which is contained in the Old and New Testaments, Book of Covenants, and Book of Mormon, is verily true; and that the pure principles set forth in those books, are the immutable and eternal principles of Heaven, and speaks a language which, when spoken in truth and virtue, sinks deep into the heart of every honest man. — Its precepts are invigorating, and in every sense of the word, tend to dignify and ennoble man's conceptions of God and his atributes. It speaks a language which is heard amidst the roar of Artillery, as well as in the silence of midnight: it speaks a language understood by the incarcerated spirit, as well as he who is unfettered and free; yet to those who will not see, it is dark, mysterious, and secret as the grave.
Oh please, read it yourself. I'm not going to get into it with you since you have excused his diary entries already, which contain awful stuff as well. Here is a link for objective readers to make up their own mind http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_source%20...%20_Full_TextEquality wrote:What was slanderous? Point to something in the Expositor that Law said that wasn't true. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you say polygamy wasn't a secret; that people knew about it or could have known about it, and that it was no big deal. Then you say that what Law was saying was "slanderous" and "non-sense." Which is it? Old hat common knowledge or slanderous non-sense?
The contents of William Law's personal diary were not printed in the Nauvoo Expositor, and are therefore irrelevant to the assertion you have made. And printed defamation is libel, not slander.
Your claim of "public nuisance" is not only circular reasoning, but a misstatement of law. The Nauvoo City Charter specifically incorporated the rights found in the U.S. Constitution. That means that freedom of the press under the First Amendment was a substantive right under Nauvoo municipal law, and that's before even talking about freedom of the press under the Illinois state constitution.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Charter
The City Council shall have powers and authority to levy and collect taxes upon all property, real and personal, within the city, not exceeding one-half per cent., per annum, upon the assessed valuation thereof, and may enforce the payment of the same in any manner prescribed by ordinance, not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and of this State.
There was not at that time any legal justification for the suppression of the Expositor or the destruction of its press. William Law and the other publishers electing not to pursue legal action against Joseph Smith, his estate, or anyone else has no bearing on the legality of the destruction of the press. The choice to waive a right of action does not mean that your right of action does not exist.