In England publications tending to bring the government into contempt, or to impair its authority, were at one time punishable criminally; but the theory of our system of government is that it exists only for the benefit of the people, and therefore that it is unwise to restrain full discussion and criticism of its acts and policies. Therefore, prosecutions for libels on the government, whether state or federal, are practically unknown. Defamatory statements as to the acts or conduct of a public official might be such as to be punishable criminally, or to form a basis for an action for civil damages sustained by him as an individual; but neither criminally nor civilly could the persons responsible for the defamatory publication be called to account for the wrong as a specific injury to the government itself. Censorship of the press by the government in its own interests and for its own protection is not regarded as a proper exercise of authority, either with reference to publications threatened or anticipated, or as to those actually made. This liberty of persons in respect to the government may be sometimes exercised for improper purposes and with injurious consequences; but the general public good is on the whole promoted by this absolute freedom of discussion, and the resulting advantages are deemed to outweigh any possible injurious consequences.

The publication of defamatory matter may, however, be productive of disturbance and disorder, and in that sense may be a public wrong punishable as a crime. In this form of libel the injury sought to be avoided is that to the public peace and tranquillity. For the protection of the public morals it may be made criminal to publish obscene or scandalous matters; and for similar reason the federal government prohibits the sending of obscene publications through the mails. The public morals as well as the public health are regarded as proper subjects for legislation in the promotion of the general welfare of the people.