The Zenger Trial paved the way for freedom of the press in America by
arguing that true statements could not be outlawed as libel.
LEARNING OBJECTIVE [ edit ]
Analyze the significance of the Zenger trial for the development of a free press in the colonies
KEY POINTS [ edit ]
John Peter Zenger was arrested for "seditious libel" after publishing newspaper articles criticizing
the governorWilliam Cosby.
Zenger's articles criticized the Cosby's attempts to increase his own salary and remove judges who
challenged him.
Zenger's attorney, Andrew Hamilton, argued that a defamatory statement is not libelous if it is true.
In effect, the Zenger Trial widened the scope of free expression in the American colonial press and
paved the way for freedom of the press protection in the Bill of Rights.
TERMS [ edit ]
Zenger Trial
John Peter Zenger (October 26, 1697 – July 28, 1746) was a German­American printer, publisher,
editor and journalist in New York City. He was a defendant in a landmark legal case in American
jurisprudence that determined that truth was a defense against charges of libel and "laid the
foundation for American press freedom. "
William Cosby
William Cosby (1690–1736) served as the British royal governor of New York from 1732 to 1736.
John Peter Zenger Trial and Freedom of the Press
John Peter Zenger (October 26, 1697 – July 28, 1746) was a German­American printer,
publisher, editor and journalist inNew York City. He was a defendant in a landmark legal case
in which his lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, claimed that the truth was a legitimate defense against
charges of libel, an argument that laid the foundation for the freedom of the press in America.
The Zenger Trial
Depiction of Andrew Hamilton defending Zenger
Zenger and Freedom of the Press
John Peter Zenger, a New York newspaper editor, publicly opposed several policies
implemented by the newly­appointed colonial governor William Cosby. Supported by members
of the popular party, Zenger's New­York Weekly Journal published articles criticizing the royal
governor. Zenger also published editorials detailing what he considered to be Cosby's offensive
actions, including his rancorous quarrel with the colonial Council over his salary and his
removal of Chief Justice Lewis Morris from the New York Supreme Court so that he could
replace him with a more pliable official.
Sir William Cosby, Governor of New York
Cosby was attacked by Zenger's paper for his actions while governor of New York
In 1734, Cosby issued a proclamation condemning the newspaper's "scandalous, virulent, false
and seditious reflections," and in November, Zenger was arrested and charged with seditious
libel. After more than eight months in prison, Zenger was defended in court
by Philadelphia lawyer, Andrew Hamilton.
During the trial, Hamilton appealed directly to the jury, claiming that the truth could not be
defamatory, and therefore, Zenger could not be found guilty of libel. Although the judge
dismissed this claim entirely, Hamilton persuaded the jury to disregard the laws on libel in
favor of this concept­­an argument that convinced the jury to return a verdict of "not guilty. "
Therefore, not only did the Zenger Trial result in a remarkable instance of jury nullifcation, but
also established a precedent for protecting the freedom of the press in the American courts.
To better understand the significance of this historic case it is important to examine an actual
issue of the New­York Daily Journal published prior to Zenger's arrest. Here we see a typical
attack against the government in Zenger's original newspaper as it originally appeared more
than 260 years ago. Page one of this issue, dated February 25, 1733, features an article written
under the pseudonym "Cato" (after the famed ancient Roman orator and historian). Zenger's
article gave contemporaries a preview of the same argument Hamilton would present to the jury
in the Zenger trial: the truth is a legitimate defense against libel. In successfully defending
Zenger in this landmark case, Hamilton established the precedent that a statement, even if
defamatory, is not libelous if it can be proved­­expanding the scope of free expression for the
colonial American press.
Cato writes:
But this Doctrine ('A lible (sic) is not less a Libel for being true') only holds true as to
private and personal failings; and it is quite otherwise when the Crimes of Men come
to Affect the Publick? Every Crime against the publick, is a great crime? – The
exposing therefore of Publick Wickedness, as it is a Duty which every Man owes to the
Truth and his Country, can never be a Libel in the Nature of Things? – it has been
hitherto generally understood, that there was no other Libels but those against
Magistrates and those against private Men. Now to me there seems to be a Third set of
Libels, full as Destructive as any of the former can probably be, I mean Libels against
the People. – I have indeed often wondered that the Inveighing against the Interest of
the People, and calling their Liberty in Question? has never been made an express
Crime. – I know not what Reason is if sapping and betraying the Liberties of a People
be not Treason. – almost all over the Earth, the People for one Injury they do their
Governor, receive Ten Thousand from them. Nay, in some Countries it is made Death
and Damnation, not to bear all the Oppression and Cruelties, which Men made
Wanton by Power inflict upon those that gave it them.