The object being to asertain, what meaning the English law attaches to the term libel, it is natural to begin by asking, what definition of libel it affords? To which we answer, none: nothing which deserves the name of a definition ever having been adduced.

Mr. Holt says, “A libel is a malicious defamation, expressed either in printing or writing, or by signs, pictures, &c., tending either to blacken the memory of one who is dead, with an intent to provoke the living, or the reputation of one who is alive, and thereby exposing him to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.” (P. 50.)

What can be more absurd than to put forth such a definition as this, with great parade too of exactness, and fortified by references to no less than six legal authorities;[*] and in the very next sentence, enumerating the species of libel, to talk of libels against religion, against morality, against the constitution.[†] Mr. Holt’s definition, by whomsoever devised, was obviously intended only for private libel; and if applied to any thing else, is unintelligible. It necessarily supposes a person libelled. Religion, morality, &c. are not persons, either dead or alive, but abstract terms. Considered only as a definition of private libel, it is abundantly mischievous, since it informs us, that to give publicity to vice, in other words, to take the only effectual security against its overspreading the earth, is, according to English law, a crime. And this doctrine, Mr. Holt, in another place, does not scruple openly to avow.[‡]

(...)

The attempts at definition, bad as they are, have only been exceptions the general rule has been, to maintain, that libel, though it ought to be punished, cannot, and ought not to be defined. The conspiracy, in truth, have a good reason for leaving the offence of libel undefined: for they would not dare to include in a definition all that the support of the conspiracy requires to be included. They would not dare to assume, by a specific law, all the power which they hope to enjoy by usurpation. Were they to make a definition which included all that they wish to be included, common feeling would be shocked, neither they nor other men would bear to look at it. Nothing, however, can be more gross than the inconsistency into which this necessarily drives them. They insist that libel cannot be defined, yet they say that twelve unlettered men are to judge what is libel and what is not. How can any man know what is included in a general rule, if he knows not what that rule is?

No sé quién es Carlos Cuesta, pero ¿Marhuenda Liberal?

Eh, en serio, dejad de llamar liberal a cualquier tipo que no se defina como de izquierdas. Un día de estos empezaremos a decir que Hugo Chávez es liberal y que la voracidad de los mercados implantada por el chavismo les deja sin papel de culo.

Carlos Cuesta es uno de los divulgadores tertulianos del liberalismo castizo.

Marhuenda, por joder

Carlos Cuesta defendiendo ayer la existencia del tipo penal de delitos de injurias contra la bandera y la monarquía. Marhuenda diciendo que le parecía que estaban poco penados.