If Zenger had lost his case, my news media different about history, politics and society, and publishing now.
hhhjj
SInce you don't tell me what method of handling rights you wish me to compare handling them on a case by case basis to, I cannot tell you what makes it different from any other method. What I can note is that handling rights on a case by case basis means handling each case alone, on its own merits.
The differences is that one cases is criminal and the other is a civil case.
Site other cases that came to similar conclusions
Obviously no one can predict who it will be but I think the proper way to refer to him would be, if for instance the President were Mrs. Clinton, it would be President and Mr. Clinton, so the way to refer to him would be Mr. Clinton. Although perhaps the rule might be different in his case since he is an ex-President.
The Zenger case established freedom of press.
massachusetts
freedom of the press
The Zenger Case was a trial that involved the colonial government and a publisher named John Paul Zenger. He was accused of printing false information. Although the judge in the case tried to force the jury into a guilty verdict, the jury actually found Mr. Zenger to be innocent on all of the charges brought against him.
john peter zenger... i just looked it up in my history book so 99.9% sure that's the right answer... :)
In the networked world, networking media might be some sort of physical cable, or it might be electromagnetic radiation (in the case of wireless networking).
The Zenger case was a hallmark liable case, wherein truth was established as a defense. In other word, if what you print is true, no matter how unflattering, if it can be proven, is printable.
The Crown v. Peter Zenger, New York, November 2, 1734
john peter zenger
His name was John Peter Zenger.
If its true its okay
John Peter Zenger was a printer who fought for freedom of the press in colonial America, much like how Fahrenheit 451 explores themes of censorship and the importance of free thought. Both Zenger's case and the book highlight the dangers of oppressive governments trying to control information and ideas.