by a more particular example. The doctrines of the Atheist
school are now under discussion, and Robert Owen and Fanny Wright have
been their prominent advocates.

In agreement with the above principles, it is a right, and the duty of
every man who has any influence and opportunity, to show the absurdity
of their doctrines, the weakness of their arguments, and the fatal
tendencies of their opinions. It is right to show that the _practical_
adoption of their principles indicates a want of common sense, just as
sowing the ocean with grain and expecting a crop would indicate the same
deficiency. If the advocates of these doctrines carry out their
principles into practice, in any such way as to offend the taste, or
infringe on the rights of others, it is proper to express disgust and
disapprobation. If the female advocate chooses to come upon a stage, and
expose her person, dress, and elocution to public criticism, it is right
to express disgust at whatever is offensive and indecorous, as it is to
criticize the book of an author, or the dancing of an actress, or any
thing else that is presented to public observation. And it is right to
make all these things appear as odious and reprehensible to others as
they do to ourselves.

But what is the private character of Robert Owen or Fanny Wright?
Whether they are ignorant or weak in intellect; whether they have
properly examined the sources of truth; how much they have been biased
by pride, passion, or vice, in adopting their opinions; whether they are
honest and sincere in their belief; whether they are selfish or
benevolent in their aims, are not matters which in any way pertain to
the discussion. They are questions about which none are qualified to
judge, except those in close and intimate communion with them. We may
inquire with propriety as to the character of a _community_ of Atheists,
or of a community where such sentiments extensively prevail, as compared
with a community of opposite sentiments. But the private character,
feelings, and motives of the individual advocates of these doctrines,
are not proper subjects of investigation in any public discussion.

If, then, it be true, that attacks on the character and motives of the
advocates of opinions are entirely irrelevant and not at all necessary
for the discovery of truth; if injury inflicted on character is the most
severe penalty that can be employed to restrain freedom of opinions and
freedom of speech, what are we