What lies did the Nauvoo Expositor print?

[_Kishkumen]

I was just being facetious, given Kishkumen's well-deserved reputation for being a hypocritical, rude, nasty guy.

I figured as much, but at the same time it is a just question.

[_sock puppet]

Joseph,

In page 18 you noted that the TBMs/mopologists had failed in 18 pages of this thread to identify a lie in the Nauvoo Expositor.

Nevo bravely took your bait and offered up six items he thought were lies.

However, those have been disposed of as each having a factually accurate basis. See here.

So now we're at 21 pages, and still no lies have been successfully identified.

[_Nevo]

But all of this is getting away from the real issue. The purported legal basis for shutting down the Expositor was libel. Opinions are not libel. False printed statements of fact (that damage a person's reputation) are libel.

Too bad Joseph Smith did not sue the Expositor publishers for defamation. Then he would have had to prove that he had a good reputation that was damaged, while the publishers would have to show the truth of their statements as an affirmative defense. I'm sure that trial would have been resolved in Joseph Smith's favor!

I agree that it is too bad that Joseph Smith did not sue the publishers for defamation. That would have been preferable to destroying the press.

Perhaps the statements in the Expositor—statements of opinion, not fact, I am instructed—do not meet the legal standard for slander or libel. So be it. I nevertheless maintain that they are "lies" in that they state things about Joseph Smith that I believe to be gross falsehoods and misrepresentations.


(by the way, true statement of fact: I actually joined Laura Pausini's fan club in the mid-90s. I think she's great.)

[_Darth J]

But this is relevant because it shows the character, or more accurately the lack of character, of JSJr and the deceitful means to which he would go to guard his fiefdom, his ego, and his reputation from the truth being revealed by the Nauvoo Expositor.

I think there are plenty of reasons for him to destroy the press, none necessarily justified, that do not require the reasons you attribute to him. I am also open to the notion that he in his weakness felt justified for doing it for some of the reasons you mention along with many others. Oh well. Either way, I'm not too concerned about this. Just curuious what material needs fixin'...so I ask.

Chapter 46: The Martyrdom: The Prophet Seals His Testimony with His Blood," Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2007)

On June 10, 1844, Joseph Smith, who was the mayor of Nauvoo, and the Nauvoo city council ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor and the press on which it was printed. The Nauvoo Expositor was an anti-Mormon newspaper that slandered [sic] the Prophet and other Saints and called for the repeal of the Nauvoo Charter.

(Slander is spoken defamation. Printed defamation is libel.)

[Guest]

By the way, here is some BS from Dallin H. Oaks:

The event that focused anti-Mormon hostilities and led directly to the Martyrdom was the action of Mayor Joseph Smith and the city council in closing a newly established opposition newspaper in Nauvoo. Mormon historians—including Elder B. H. Roberts—had conceded that this action was illegal, but as a young law professor pursuing original research, I was pleased to find a legal basis for this action in the Illinois law of 1844. The amendment to the United States Constitution that extended the guarantee of freedom of the press to protect against the actions of city and state governments was not adopted until 1868, and it was not enforced as a matter of federal law until 1931. (See Dallin H. Oaks, “The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor,” Utah Law Review 9 [1965]: 862.) We should judge the actions of our predecessors on the basis of the laws and commandments and circumstances of their day, not ours.

Talking about the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with this. The Illinois state constitution guaranteed freedom of the press, and the Nauvoo city charter incorporated the rights expressed in the federal Constitution.

Oak's law review article is here: http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/item_v ... ISOPTR=288

Regarding the discussion about libel in this thread, notice what the law review articles says (875-876):

So far as the synopsis discloses, the council spent a great deal of time discussing means of stopping the Expositor and of exposing the character of its publishers, but very little time considering and refuting its contents. The synopsis does recite that the paper's representations about the doctrine and
practice of plural marriage were denied, and that the councilors made numerous general references to the paper's libelous nature without, however, specifically identifying the offensive statements.

He then goes on to argue to argue from ignorance that destroying the Expositor was reasonable without citing a single case that is on point and admitting that there was no precedent for abating a newspaper as a nuisance.

The premise of the argument is that the Expositor was libelous, and yet Oaks admits the following:

"There was nothing in the Expositor's political copy that gave the authorities of Nauvoo any legal basis whatever for the suppression of the newspaper." (884)

"Consequently, the doctrinal controversy in the Expositor offered no conceivable basis for suppressionary action by city authorities." (884)

Regarding the claims about morality: "Volumes have been written about the truth or falsity of these and similar charges relating to the character of the Mormon leaders. For present purposes it is unnecessary — even if it were possible — to resolve the conflicts between their detractors and defenders. Whether the charges were true or false, they were malicious, scandalous, and defamatory." (885)

Did you catch the circular reasoning? "Whether or not the charges were true, they were defamatory." Then he goes on to argue the justification for abatement of a nuisance without establishing that the Expositor was defamatory and without reference to the status of truth as a defense to claims of defamation. Oaks cites several cases involving abatement of a newspaper where the abatement was either voluntarily ended (under Abraham Lincoln) or where the abatement was reversed on appeal.

Oaks also talks at length (899-901) about the Minnesota Supreme Court rejecting a freedom of the press claim for the suppression of a paper that was "libelous and scandalous" and arguing how this is similar to the Expositor still without having established that the Expositor was libelous (and that Minnesota case was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, anyway).

Oh, and he also admits that destroying the press itself was illegal even if you agree with his unproven assumption that the Expositor was libelous.

"I was pleased to find a legal basis for this action in the Illinois law of 1844." To put it in legal terms, that is damned BS. His law review article did nothing of the kind; it merely provided a typical apologist argument about things that may possibly have happened if you assume certain unproven premises as being true. Here are the law review article's conclusions:

"There was no direct precedent in 1844 to support the use of nuisance-abatement powers to suppress a newspaper like the Expositor, but there was no direct authority against such use either." (901)

"Aside from damages for unnecessary destruction of the press, for which the Nauvoo authorities were unquestionably liable, the remaining actions of the council, including its interpretation of the constitutional guarantee of a free press, can be supported by reference to the law of their day." (902)

Yes, provided that you accept the unproven premise that the Expositor was libelous.

[_Nevo]

Sock, I love you buddy, but could you lay off calling Nevo a "deluded sheeple"? Pretty please?

I appreciate your good intentions, Kish, but sock puppet has every right to call me a "deluded sheeple." I don't need to be coddled. I reserve the right to speak bluntly to others on this board, and I allow sock puppet the same privilege. My use of the word "idiot" was indeed intended as a provocation. See, I do know something about "invective speech" ;)

[_Kishkumen]

"I was pleased to find a legal basis for this action in the Illinois law of 1844." To put it in legal terms, that is f*****g b***s***. His law review article did nothing of the kind; it merely provided a typical apologist argument about things that may possibly have happened if you assume certain unproven premises as being true. Here are the law review article's conclusions:

"There was no direct precedent in 1844 to support the use of nuisance-abatement powers to suppress a newspaper like the Expositor, but there was no direct authority against such use either." (901)

"Aside from damages for unnecessary destruction of the press, for which the Nauvoo authorities were unquestionably liable, the remaining actions of the council, including its interpretation of the constitutional guarantee of a free press, can be supported by reference to the law of their day." (902)

Yes, provided that you accept the unproven premise that the Expositor was libelous.

Darth J, this is astounding. I had never read this article before. I am speechless. You really should craft your own law review article on the same question and submit it for publication. It would be interesting to observe the debate that would undoubtedly unfold as a result.

I was reminded of the Leonard's statement that he was "pleased to find" that Brigham Young was not responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I guess the important thing here is that these guys comforted themselves, even if they ultimately failed to make a convincing case that the Expositor was libelous, or that the people of Iron County were guilty of grossly misinterpreting LDS leadership and going completely rogue in the Massacre.

[_Kishkumen]

I appreciate your good intentions, Kish, but sock puppet has every right to call me a "deluded sheeple." I don't need to be coddled. I reserve the right to speak bluntly to others on this board, and I allow sock puppet the same privilege. My use of the word "idiot" was indeed intended as a provocation. See, I do know something about "invective speech" ;)

Oh, I do not deny his right to do so, Nevo. No indeed. We all have lots of rights, don't we? I only question the wisdom of continuing to pursue each other so caustically, something which I am surely guilty of doing.

I know you are a big boy, especially since you are one of the few believers left standing here who has the knowledge and ability to educate even the most vile reprobate--like me, for instance.

[_sock puppet]

By the way, here is some b***s*** from Dallin H. Oaks:

The event that focused anti-Mormon hostilities and led directly to the Martyrdom was the action of Mayor Joseph Smith and the city council in closing a newly established opposition newspaper in Nauvoo. Mormon historians—including Elder B. H. Roberts—had conceded that this action was illegal, but as a young law professor pursuing original research, I was pleased to find a legal basis for this action in the Illinois law of 1844. The amendment to the United States Constitution that extended the guarantee of freedom of the press to protect against the actions of city and state governments was not adopted until 1868, and it was not enforced as a matter of federal law until 1931. (See Dallin H. Oaks, “The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor,” Utah Law Review 9 [1965]: 862.) We should judge the actions of our predecessors on the basis of the laws and commandments and circumstances of their day, not ours.

Talking about the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with this. The Illinois state constitution guaranteed freedom of the press, and the Nauvoo city charter incorporated the rights expressed in the federal Constitution.

Oak's law review article is here: http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/item_v ... ISOPTR=288

Regarding the discussion about libel in this thread, notice what the law review articles says (875-876):

So far as the synopsis discloses, the council spent a great deal of time discussing means of stopping the Expositor and of exposing the character of its publishers, but very little time considering and refuting its contents. The synopsis does recite that the paper's representations about the doctrine and
practice of plural marriage were denied, and that the councilors made numerous general references to the paper's libelous nature without, however, specifically identifying the offensive statements.

He then goes on to argue to argue from ignorance that destroying the Expositor was reasonable without citing a single case that is on point and admitting that there was no precedent for abating a newspaper as a nuisance.

The premise of the argument is that the Expositor was libelous, and yet Oaks admits the following:

"There was nothing in the Expositor's political copy that gave the authorities of Nauvoo any legal basis whatever for the suppression of the newspaper." (884)

"Consequently, the doctrinal controversy in the Expositor offered no conceivable basis for suppressionary action by city authorities." (884)

Regarding the claims about morality: "Volumes have been written about the truth or falsity of these and similar charges relating to the character of the Mormon leaders. For present purposes it is unnecessary — even if it were possible — to resolve the conflicts between their detractors and defenders. Whether the charges were true or false, they were malicious, scandalous, and defamatory." (885)

Did you catch the circular reasoning? "Whether or not the charges were true, they were defamatory." Then he goes on to argue the justification for abatement of a nuisance without establishing that the Expositor was defamatory and without reference to the status of truth as a defense to claims of defamation. Oaks cites several cases involving abatement of a newspaper where the abatement was either voluntarily ended (under Abraham Lincoln) or where the abatement was reversed on appeal.

Oaks also talks at length (899-901) about the Minnesota Supreme Court rejecting a freedom of the press claim for the suppression of a paper that was "libelous and scandalous" and arguing how this is similar to the Expositor still without having established that the Expositor was libelous (and that Minnesota case was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, anyway).

Oh, and he also admits that destroying the press itself was illegal even if you agree with his unproven assumption that the Expositor was libelous.

"I was pleased to find a legal basis for this action in the Illinois law of 1844." To put it in legal terms, that is f*****g b***s***. His law review article did nothing of the kind; it merely provided a typical apologist argument about things that may possibly have happened if you assume certain unproven premises as being true. Here are the law review article's conclusions:

"There was no direct precedent in 1844 to support the use of nuisance-abatement powers to suppress a newspaper like the Expositor, but there was no direct authority against such use either." (901)

"Aside from damages for unnecessary destruction of the press, for which the Nauvoo authorities were unquestionably liable, the remaining actions of the council, including its interpretation of the constitutional guarantee of a free press, can be supported by reference to the law of their day." (902)

Yes, provided that you accept the unproven premise that the Expositor was libelous.

Unfortunately, and sadly, Professor Oaks knew better, legally speaking. He prostituted his legal opinion to bring himself (and those that would read his article) some cognitive consonance. In doing so, he assured himself a position of high regard with the Brethren, eventually leading to BYU's presidency and an apostleship--perhaps even a prophethood for himself.

To have read Professor Oaks' other legal writings, to have been taught by him in law school, I can say it is quite disingenuous for him to have written the law review article and not to have later corrected the legal mis-analysis.

This is the type of prostitution of one's legal opinions that gives lawyers such a bad reputation.

[_sock puppet]

Sock, I love you buddy, but could you lay off calling Nevo a "deluded sheeple"? Pretty please?

I appreciate your good intentions, Kish, but sock puppet has every right to call me a "deluded sheeple." I don't need to be coddled. I reserve the right to speak bluntly to others on this board, and I allow sock puppet the same privilege. My use of the word "idiot" was indeed intended as a provocation. See, I do know something about "invective speech" ;)

Nevo is a big boy. He's the only TBM/mopologist to have ventured in this thread what he considers to be factually untrue statements in the Nauvoo Expositor. Others cower where Nevo has dared to tread.