tribunals that that law is, in principle, applicable to foreigners. By this law registration of newspapers is obligatory, and the government has power of control, defined in art. 13 as follows: “In the interests of public order, of religion or of morality, every newspaper or periodical can be suspended or suppressed by order of the minister of the interior after two warnings, or, without previous warning, by a decision of the council of ministers. Each warning may be accompanied by a fine of from, £E5 to £E20.” If a newspaper or periodical which has been suppressed continues to appear, the responsible parties can be fined, and the printing-press which issues the suppressed publication can be closed by order of the minister of the interior. The closure or seizure of the printing-press would, however, in the case of a foreigner require the co-operation of his consul.
This law was from about 1900 allowed to fall into disuse. Owing to the excesses of the Arabic newspapers the law was revived in the early part of 1909, but was applied with great moderation. During the year two native papers were warned and one was suppressed. The tribunals remained alone competent to inflict any penalty (apart from suppression and seizure of the printing-press) more severe than a fine of £E2O, and in 1909 under the penal code the editor of one native paper was sentenced to a year's imprisonment and the editor of another to three months' imprisonment. (See Sir Eldon Gorst's reports on Egypt for 1908 and 1909, specially Egypt No. 1, 1909, pp. 3-5.)
The United States.—The first constitutions of Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and North Carolina, enacted in 1776, are interesting as containing the earliest declarations of any legislative authority in favour of the liberty of the press. The same principle was afterwards adopted in the constitution of the United States. The acts of Congress dealing with the press are not numerous, as each state has for the most part its own legislation on the subject, dealing generally with, among other matters, the registration of newspapers, the monopoly of the state printer, and the right of giving the truth in evidence in defence to proceedings for libel. The act of the 18th of August 1856 forbids diplomatic or consular officers of the United States to correspond with any foreign newspaper in regard to the affairs of a foreign state. The act of the 3rd of March 1873 prohibits the printing and circulation of obscene literature. Legislation by Congress has provided that all printing (unless otherwise ordered by law) for the Senate and House of Representatives and the executive and judicial departments, shall be done by the government printer.
Austria-Hungary.—In the Austrian Empire, which from 1804 to 1867 embraced Hungary also, the press laws under Metternich's régime were extremely severe. By the penal code of 1808 all printing had to be licensed, under heavy penalties, and in 1810 two censors were appointed. In short, the press had no shadow of liberty. During the revolution of 1848-1849 the principle of the freedom of the press was established, but the censorship was restored in 1852 and not abolished until 1863. The actual press laws of Austria are based on the press law of the 17th of December 1862 as modified by later supplementary enactments. In principle the freedom of the press was secured by art. 13 of the constitution of the 21st of December 1867. In practice, however, it was still restricted by the obligation on newspaper proprietors to deposit “caution money” (Kautionszwang) with the authorities, and the retention of the government stamp on newspapers. The caution money was abolished by a press law of the 9th of July 1894, and the stamp by that of the 27th of December 1899. The police, however, still have the right, either on their own initiative or under the instructions of the public prosecutor (Staatsanwalt), “provisionally” to confiscate printed matter which in their opinion offends against the terms of the press law or is contrary to the public interest. The public prosecutor has, within eight days, to justify this action in court, either by proceeding against those responsible for the publication, or by proving the published matter is offensive and ought to be suppressed. This latter “objective” procedure (objektives Verfahren) is peculiar to Austria and obviously places vast powers of control in the hands of the authorities. In 1902 the government introduced a bill greatly modifying these and other provisions of the press law in a liberal sense, but the bill was postponed to more urgent matters.
In Hungary the liberty of the press was secured by art. 18 of the constitution of 1848, which was restored in 1867. Under this the censorship was abolished; but, in addition to provision for the cases of libel, incitement to violence and crime, &c., the law also provided penalties for certain political press offences (§§ 6-8), i.e. attacks on the king or members of his family, incitements to (a) the dissolution of the territorial unity of the state or of the dynastic link with Austria; (b) the forcible alteration of the constitution; (c) disobedience to lawful authorities; (d) commission of crime. Press offences are tried by special jury courts. Under the Criminal Code of 1878 (§§ 170-174) further offences were made subject to penalty, including “direct incitement of one class of the population, one nationality or religious denomination to hatred of another,” instigation against the constitution and parliament, and glorification of any one who has suffered punishment for such offences. “Direct incitement” (§ 172), was subsequently interpreted by the Curia to mean “any spoken or written word . . . which is capable of producing in another hatred against a nationality, &c.”
The result of these provisions has been that liberty of the press has existed in practice only for the Magyars, constant prosecutions having been directed against the editors and proprietors of publications giving voice to the grievances of the other Hungarian races, conviction being all but inevitable owing to the special juries (due to the high property qualification) being almost exclusively composed of members of the dominant race.
In Transylvania, where the old stringent Austrian press law of 1852 is still in force, the public prosecutor has discretionary powers to confiscate obnoxious literature, powers freely used against the Rumanian press. (See R. W. Seton Watson, Racial Problems in Hungary, London, 1908, pp. 293 sqq.)
Belgium.—It was the prosecution of political writers by the Dutch government that directly led to the independence of Belgium in 1830. By the Belgian constitution of the 7th of February 1831, art. 18, it is declared that the press is free, that censorship shall never again be established, that sureties cannot be exacted from writers, editors or printers, and that when the author is known and domiciled in Belgium the printer or bookseller cannot be prosecuted. By art. 98 press offences are to be tried by jury. The penal law of the press is contained in the decree of the 20th of July 1831, made perpetual in 1833. By this law it is made an offence, apart from the penal code, (1) to incite to the commission of a crime by placards or printed writings in a public meeting; (2) to attack the obligatory force of the laws, or to incite to disobedience of them; (3) to attack the constitutional authority or inviolability of the king, the constitutional authority of the dynasty, or the authority and rights of the chambers. Every copy of a journal must bear the name of the printer and the indication of his domicile in Belgium. Proceedings for offences against the law must be taken in some cases within three months, in others within a year.
Denmark.—Press offences were at one time punished with great severity. By the code of Christian V. (1683) libel was punished with infamy and hard labour for life, and, if against a magistrate, with death. Censorship was abolished and the press declared free by art. 86 of the constitution granted by Frederick VII. on the 5th of June 1849 and confirmed by Christian IX. in 1866. Art. 81 forbids the search for or seizure of printed matter in a dwelling-house, unless after judicial proceedings.
France.—The government began early to impose stringent restrictions upon printing. An edict of Henry II. in 1559 made it punishable with death to print without authority. The university of Paris originally claimed the right of licensing new theological works, a jurisdiction vested in the Crown by an ordinance of 1566. Offences against religion were severely punished by the secular authorities. Thus the parliament of Toulouse sent Vanini to the stake in 1619 for the crime of publishing a heretical work. A few years later, in 1626, Cardinal Richelieu declared it a capital offence to publish a work against religion or the state. In 1723 appeared a regulation forbidding any but licensed booksellers to deal in books. Many later regulations were directed against unlicensed presses, the employment of more than a certain number of workmen, &c. At the Revolution all these restrictions were abolished, and the Assembly declared it to be the right of every citizen to print and publish his opinions. This new liberty quickly needed a check, which was attempted as early as 1791, but no effectual restraint was imposed until the law of the 5th of February 1810 established a direction of the press. The charter of Louis XVIII. in 1814 gave liberty to the press in express terms, but restrictions soon followed. In 1819 a system of sureties (cautionnements) replaced the censorship; The Revolution of 1830 was caused by, inter alia, one of the ordinances of St Cloud (July 25, 1830) for suspension of the liberty of the press. Restrictions on the liberty were removed for the time in 1830 and 1852, only to be succeeded as usual by the press laws of 1835 and 1852. During the Second Empire government prosecutions for libel were used as a powerful engine against the press. The proceedings against Montalembert in 1858 are a well-known instance. Between 1858 and 1866 many newspapers were suppressed by proclamation. With the republic liberty of the press was completely re-established. A decree of the 27th of October 1870 submitted press offences to trial by jury.[1] The law of the 29th of July 1881, by which the French press is now regulated, begins by asserting the liberty of the press and of book selling. The principal limitations of this liberty are the prohibition to publish criminal proceedings before hearing in public, or lists of subscriptions for indemnifying an accused person, and the power of forbidding the entrance of foreign newspapers under certain circumstances. The order of responsibility for printed matter is (1) the manager or editor, (2) the author, (3) the printer, (4) the vender or distributor. The printer and the vender, however, can only be punished for acts not falling within their proper functions. Proceedings for breaches of the law must be taken within three months. As to taxation, the decree of the 5th of September 1870 abolished the stamp duty upon newspapers, but it is still imposed
- ↑ See Dalloz, Jurisprudence générale, s.v. “Presse”; ibid. Titles alphabétiques (1845-1877), s.v. “ Presse.”
