Conceived in Liberty Volume 2 - Ludwig von Mises Institute

Massachusetts was dramatically illustrated the following year in the case of
the Reverend John Checkley, the leading Anglican minister in Massachusetts.
In 1719, Checkley had written a tract criticizing Calvinist doctrines. With the
governor still exercising prior censorship, Checkley was prevented from publishing
his essay. Returning from England in 1724 with a printed stock of his
book, Checkley was denounced by the Council for "vile and scandalous passages
. . . reflecting on the [Puritan] ministers of the gospel established in
this province, and denying their sacred function and the holy ordinances of
religion as administered by them." The Council ordered the attorney general
to try Checkley, who was convicted of seditious libel, fined fifty pounds, and
bonded for future good behavior.
There were virtually no intrusions on freedom of the press in Massachusetts
in the next two decades, but only because this freedom was not exercised very
vigorously. After Franklin discontinued the Courant in 1726, the newspapers
settled down to being timid sheets with no editorial viewpoint of their own.
The boldest publisher was Thomas Fleet, publisher of the Boston Evening
Post. Fleet maintained the general practice of giving equal hearing to both
sides of every controversial question, but more vigorously and trenchantly
than did his competitiors. For daring to publish unorthodox opinions, however,
the ministers denounced Fleet and urged the magistrates to suppress the
Evening Post as a "dangerous engine, a sink of sedition, error, and heresy."
In the spring of 1742, Fleet published an item critical of Britain's conduct of
the war with Spain, and the Council immediately ordered prosecution for libel
against the Crown. Fleet was able to avoid prosecution, but only by proving
the truth of the item in question. Thus newspapers were alerted to the narrow
bounds within which they could engage in political comment.
In the fall of 1754 the Massachusetts lower house demonstrated its power
to punish criticism as a supposed breach of its privileges. A pamphlet was
anonymously written and published satirizng debates in the house on an
unpopular tax bill. The lower house angrily denounced the humorous piece as
a "false, scandalous libel," ordered the hangman to burn the pamphlet publicly,
and to drag before it Daniel Fowle, suspected of doing the printing.
Fowle was induced to confess his deed and to implicate his brother as well as
Royal Tyler, a prominent merchant, as the author. Fowle did not, however,
beg mercy from the lower house and he was summarily thrown into prison
incommunicado on the mere charge of suspicion and prevented from writing
to his wife. After five days of such imprisonment under foul conditions, the
lower house bitterly reprimanded Fowle for publishing seditious libel and sent
him back to his cell until he could pay the costs of the case. Tyler, in the meanwhile,
had demanded a lawyer and, when this was denied him by the house,
refused to incriminate himself by answering any questions. He was thrown into
jail without bail but was suddenly released after two days along with Fowle's
apprentice. After six days in prison Fowle himself was released to visit his
146