Ordinance specifying and defining the limits of freedom of the press

As it is in general the desire and will of the King that every one of his subjects should enjoy all the liberties

which can exist in an orderly state, so he particularly favours the liberty of the press, because he considers it

the most efficacious means of spreading enlightenment and general knowledge among all classes of citizens.

With a view to promoting a cause so beneficial to humanity, he abolished censorship soon after his accession to power, thus opening the way for every enlightened and honest man to publish the results of his researches and to express freely his thoughts and opinions on whatever may contribute to the common good. In order that the press may not, by its unrestricted freedom, become the instrument of all sorts of base passions, to the detriment of public tranquility and private security, its freedom must be directed by the law to the common good, which is its object, and, as a part of public education, it must be subject to the supervision of the State. It is therefore incumbent upon Him, as King and Legislator, to set limits to its abuse, so that it may not degenerate into reckless impertinence and become a means of wickedness, capable with impunity of undermining the foundations of the State and disturbing the civil security which is inseparable from true civil liberty. Against such abuses has been repeatedly warned,

especially by decree. 3 Dec. (promulgated with P[lacard] 4 Dec.) 1790. The King, however, learns with the utmost displeasure that his laws in this respect are still being violated without ceasing, and that some malicious persons, with punishable impudence, daily attack and abuse all that is sacred and honourable in any civil society, and regularly spread false notions and endeavour to propagate false opinions about the services most important to man and citizen; whereby the less enlightened part of the common people, especially the inexperienced youth, may easily be misled and corrupted.

Such an offence is certainly prevented by the censorship of writings before they are sent to press; but as this means involves an unpleasant constraint on every good and enlightened man who wishes to be useful with his knowledge, the King will not make use of it; instead, he will endeavour as firmly and carefully as possible to determine by law the limits of the freedom of the press, and to add suitable penalties for those who dare to violate the regulations of his patriotic and well-intentioned commandments. He has also decided to mitigate the penalties laid down in [the Danish Code of 1688’s] [book] 2  – [chapter] 21, [book] 20 – [chapter] 4, and [book] 6 - [chapter] 1 – [article]1, as well as [book] 6 - [chapter] 4 – [chapters] 1, 2 and 9, in so far as these can be mitigated without defeating their purpose; while on the other hand, in order to protect the vigour of civil respect, which is one of the most sacred rights of civil society, he has deemed it necessary to apply corporal punishment to gross offenders.

And as it has been found that insidious and loathsome wickedness generally seeks shelter under anonymity, but justice requires that every man should be equally known for what he has publicly printed, and that in the former case he should be no less known by his name than in the latter, he therefore deems it most

expedient to prohibit all anonymity, and to impose on every person who publishes any printed work the duty of naming himself:

1.) Whosoever shall be found in any printed publication either agitating against or inciting to change the form of government established by the constitution of the fatherland, or to revolt against the King, or to resist the King’s commands, shall forfeit his life.

2.) Whoever, in any printed publication, defames, insinuates, or attempts to spread hatred and discontent against the constitution of these realms or against the King’s government, either in general or in individual acts, shall be punished with banishment; and whoever, after having been outside the borders, enters the King’s realms and lands again without permission, shall work in iron for the rest of his life.

3.) Whoever, in the same way, defames or hates the monarchical government in general, shall be sentenced to banishment for 3 to 10 years, according to the greater or lesser degree of the offence.

4.) Although the King, for his part, despises personal insults against himself, and he knows that the royal princes and princesses think as he does in this respect, yet he cannot, as legislator, prescribe no punishment for such an offence; it is, therefore, decreed that if anyone attempts by means of print to spread insulting or offensive rumours against the King, or the Queen, or the royal princes and princesses, the guilty person shall be sentenced to perpetual imprisonment, or to imprisonment for 3 to 10 years, according to the gravity of the offence.

5.) Whoever

publishes any writings aimed at destroying the doctrine of the existence of God and the immortality of the human soul, and whoever, in printed writings, defames or insults the doctrine of the Christian religion, which, according to the Constitution of the King’s Realms and the laws of the country, is to be protected and honoured, shall be punished with banishment for 3 to 10 years. And as the King desires that every other religious community found in his kingdoms shall also enjoy honour in their worship of God, it is decreed that if anyone attempts to offend such communities by making a mockery of their creed or religion, the guilty party, if charged, shall be punished with imprisonment on bread and water from 4 to 14 days.

6.) Whoever, in printed writings, spreads false reports about an important part of the State, or about the decisions and measures of the Government, shall be sentenced to work in the House of Correction from 2 months to 2 years, in proportion to the damage or inconvenience which the spread false information could have had, or, according to its nature, has caused.

7.) The King does not wish that honest and enlightened men should be prevented from publicly expressing, with boldness and decency, their thoughts on what, in their opinion, may contribute to the promotion of the common good; nor shall anyone be forbidden to express his opinion on what, in his opinion, may be improved or corrected in the laws, ordinances, and public regulations of the country; but it is self-evident that the author should express himself with modesty, and not disregard the honour which he, as a citizen and subject, owes to the government and the legislature. If any person should act contrary to this, by

harbouring bitterness against the government, or by couching his remarks on its measures in improper and indecent expressions, but not to such an extent as to be considered under section 2, he shall be sentenced to imprisonment on bread and water from 4 to 14 days.

8.) If any writing is printed in the King’s realm which insults befriended foreign powers, either by defaming and insulting the rulers, or, without mentioning their names, by ascribing unjust and shameful acts to such governments, the guilty person shall be punished with work in the house of correction from 3 months to 3 years, according to the degree of the insult.

9.) If a printed work is published which offends morality and decency, the author shall be punished with imprisonment on bread and water from 4 to 14 days.

10.) If accusations are made in printed writings against the Royal Colleges, Courts or other civil servants concerning their administration of office, the matter, if important, shall be submitted to the King for consideration and decision as to whether it should be further investigated, so that anyone found guilty may be held responsible and punished. In addition, every official who is accused of dishonesty in the exercise of his office is bound to renounce it (for which he shall receive a beneficium proceffus gratuiti), the King reserving the right to decide, according to the circumstances, whether he may continue to exercise his office until the matter has been settled, or whether he shall temporarily refrain from doing so, in accordance with 3 - 4 - 4. However, if the accusation is highly offensive, and it is therefore obvious or probable that it is false, the King will have the author of the writings prosecuted by the Procurator-General or any other appropriate person, especially if it concerns his colleges,

courts or most important officials. It goes without saying that in this case, as in all other cases of private libel, if the accusation is certain, the accused must have the right to prove its truth; if, on the other hand, the libellant has not mentioned any indisputable or individual fact, but has only made vague accusations against the official or any other citizen, he must not be allowed, on pain of having to produce evidence, to institute an inquisition against the person whose reputation he has attacked.

11.) Offences committed against private persons by abuse of the freedom of the press shall be left to the persons themselves to be prosecuted by law. But as it is imperative for the King and the common good that the reputations of the royal officials should be untainted, they shall, even when merely dishonourable accusations are made against their private character and actions, be obliged to disprove these accusation with a legal verdict.

12. ) As honourable quarrels and unprovoked assaults on the good name and reputation of citizens are more offensive to the persons concerned when they are published in print than when they are merely expressed verbally, so the offence is more serious from the point of view of morality in the former case than in the latter, since the act is then committed intentionally; the punishment (the object of which is to preserve civil respect) should be fixed in proportion to it. It is therefore decreed that whoever, in a printed publication, ascribes to an innocent person such dishonourable accusations as are referred to in [the Danish Code of 1688’s] [book] 6 – [chapter] 21 – [articles] 2, 3 and 7, shall, if the accusations are in the highest degree defamatory, and there is not the slightest reason given

by the offended party, be sentenced, in addition to the punishment prescribed in the foregoing articles, to imprisonment from two months to two years, according to the nature of the case; and, if the offence is of the kind specified in article 4 of the said chapter, the guilty party shall be punished with sufficient fines, from 50 to 1000 riksdaler, to the poor of the city, according to the degree of the offence.

13. ) If the offence or insult in a writing is cloaked in allegory or irony, but the meaning and evil intent are unmistakable, the author shall be found guilty of the same punishment as if he had spoken plainly and without pretense; But if it is doubtful whether the meaning is punishable or offensive, the judge, in acquitting the author of the punishment, shall, reprimand him in the sentence for his carelessness, and warn him to use better deliberation in what he may write.

14.) The decisions contained in §§ 9 and 13 shall also apply to immoral and allegorical engravings and woodcuts or other pictures which are purchased or published. On these the engraver shall also put his name, under penalty of a fine of 200 riksdaler to the poor of the city.

15.) No person shall practise the art of printing without having obtained a royal privilege. This privilege shall be granted by the Danish Chancellery; and the present printers, who are not already privileged, may expect the same free of charge on application.

16.) Every person who has any writing (small or large) printed, shall mention himself on the title page as the author, by his full name, office or other character or trade, and whether he himself or another is the publisher; then the place where the writing is printed, together with the printer, shall be mentioned.

For the rest, nothing shall be printed but by the privileged printers. If anyone acts contrary to this, the writing shall be confiscated, and both the publisher and the printer shall be sentenced to pay a fine of 200 riksdaler to the local poor relief, in addition to the same punishment given to the author, if the content of the published writing is found to be punishable.

17.) The publisher and printer of a writing shall also guarantee that the author named therein is the true author, and that he is and remains present if the writing is prosecuted, so that he may be held responsible and excused by law and judgement for its contents. If they fail to do so, they shall be deemed to be in the place of the author and shall suffer the penalty which would have been inflicted on him had he been present.

18.) If a person is accused of abusing the freedom of printing, no printer may accept a writing from him for printing as long as he is publicly accused, unless a resident citizen gives his written declaration that he will vouch for the content of the writing. In the absence of such a guarantee, the printer shall be liable and judged as if he himself were the author of the work. Therefore, when legal action is taken against any person for misuse of printing, the same shall be immediately announced by the authority ordering the action in all domestic newspapers for the information of the public.

19.) In all journals and periodicals, not only the publisher and printer, but also the author of each article, and the editor, shall be named; and the latter shall be responsible,

as well as the author, for what appears in the journal or periodical. In the case of newspapers or public periodicals, the editor shall also be named, and shall be responsible for the contents as well as the publisher. Those who fail to do so shall be punished in accordance with Article 16 of this Law.

20.) No person who has been found guilty of an offence against this Ordinance shall cause any writing to be printed before the manuscript has been presented to the Chief of Police of the place and approved by him to be printed, which approval shall be printed on the first sheet. And if any printer shall act contrary to this, and print any writing for an author so condemned, without the manuscript having been signed by the chief of police, he shall have his privilege violated, and moreover, if the content be punishable, he shall be condemned to the same punishment as the author. And in order that no printer may plead ignorance in this case, every court which sentences any person to punishment or reprimand for abusing the press shall, at the expense of the guilty party, cause the sentence to be published forthwith in all the newspapers of the country. Furthermore, the author to whom the above rule applies shall be obliged to deliver to the Chief of Police two copies of the manuscript, one of which (which should be flawless and bear the author’s name) he shall keep for his own security, in order to prevent the copy signed by him from being falsified by alterations or additions.

21.) When a writing is forbidden by the law because of its punishable content, it is the duty of any person who has it for sale or distribution to immediately surrender all copies in his possession to the Chief of Police of the place, after a public warning. These shall remain in the custody of the Chief of Police until the case has been disposed of by a final judgement; and if the author is then entirely acquitted, they shall be returned

to the person concerned; otherwise the Chief of Police shall cause them to be burnt. Anyone who, after the public call for the surrender of such a pamphlet, continues to distribute it, or keeps it, or has copies of it, shall be ordered to pay a fine of 500 riksdaler to the local charity for the poor. If he does so more than once, he shall be fined twice as much, and, if he is a citizen or a privileged bookseller, he shall also be deprived of his citizenship or privilege.

22.) Any person who publishes, prints, forges, or disseminates any writing which has been declared punishable by a judgement shall be considered in accordance with section 17 of this order.

23.) If a Royal subject has a writing printed abroad, the content of which is punishable according to this Ordinance, both the author and the person who falsifies or distributes such a writing shall be considered in the Royal Kingdoms and countries with the same penalty as if it had been published in this country.

24.) No one may translate into the Danish language any writing containing offences against this Frs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9§. Anyone who does so shall be punished as if he himself had been the author. For the rest, the names of the translators and the authors shall be given on the title page of the writings.

25.) If any person forges or otherwise disseminates manuscripts, the contents of which, if printed, would be deemed punishable, such discovery shall not, in order to avoid the effect of this ordinance, exempt from punishment either the author or those who sell and disseminate such manuscripts; but these persons shall be considered in the same manner as if they had published them by printing. Whoever exhibits manuscripts shall be punished according to [the Danish Code of 1688’s] [book] 6 – [chapter] 21 – [article] 8, but in such a way that the

penalty of life imprisonment stipulated at the end of the said article shall be removed.

26.) Just as it was by Rescr. 3 Dec. (as promulgated by Pl[acard] 4 Dec.) 1790, the Chief of Police at Copenhagen is ordered to submit to the Danish Chancellors all such writings as may be the subject of judicial attention. This order is hereby accepted in the most serious manner. It is further ordered that a copy of all newspapers, magazines and periodicals, and of all publications not exceeding 24 sheets, shall be given by the printers to the Chief of Police before such publications are distributed or sold to others. This rule shall apply whether the book is published in its entirety or as a part of a larger book; in the latter case, the parts published in instalments shall be delivered to the Chief of Police, if each part does not contain more than the aforesaid 24 sheets. If any printer neglects this duty, he shall be fined 100 riksdaler to the poor, which fine shall be doubled each time the offence is repeated. If the chief of police finds anything in such a publication which is punishable or proper, he shall forthwith prohibit its sale, take all the printed copies under seal, and submit the publication with his report to the Chancellery, whose Collegium shall forthwith consider and decide whether the suspension should be lifted, or in the contrary case, take the further necessary steps. The King shall also appoint an assistant to the Chief of Police to examine the published writings, so that the supervision may be better observed and carried out with speed.

27.) The same rules laid down in § 26 with regard to writings printed in the port are to be observed in any other place, with the difference that the police chiefs, if they consider any writing to be unlawful, shall refer it to the diocesan

or county official concerned, who shall in turn report the matter to the Collegium.

28.) If the Chancellery finds that a Chief of Police or a Commanding Officer has been negligent in the supervision required of him by this Ordinance, the said Collegium shall hold the negligent official responsible. Otherwise, the Chancellery itself shall enforce and observe these commandments with zeal and vigour, as it will be accountable to the King for doing so.

The King having, by this ordinance, laid down the limits of the freedom of the press, and having thus carefully endeavoured to restrain its abuse, without placing obstacles in the way of the free expression of thought by good, enlightened, and upright men. In order to avoid misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the word “defame” [laster] (which is used in several sections of this legislation because it is generic and the language of our older laws), He will add the remark that the said expression means to attribute to a person or to the act done such an imperfection as cannot be consistent with its intention. Thus (for example) the form of government of the state and the religion protected by the laws of the country are defamed when such defects are attributed to them that the purpose of civil society (civil liberty, security and general welfare) could not be achieved or could not exist [because of it].