Los Angeles herald., 1910-08-05
ONE LAW FOR ALL

IIENIlON Is called by the Los
u Angeles Examiner to section 1872
"a of the penal code of California.
That paper demands of District Attor-
ney Fredericks that he invoke the
statute against the moving picture evil.
The moving pictures are just now
dreadfully distressing to the Examiner.
But what is sauce for the goose
should sauce for the gander. The
Herald hopes the law will be enforced,
but submits to the district attorney
that it should be invoked with ABB
SOLUTE IMPARTIALITY. On the
fourth day of last July the Los Angeles
Examiner erected in Broadway, in front
of its office, a high platform upon
which it staged free show, inviting
all the youth of the city to come and
see it. This show was given by strip
ping two young men to the waist and
having them reproduce, as fast as the
wires described them, the blows deliv
cred in the ring at Reno.
What the Examiner did was to give
flesh and blood reproduction of the
SAME SCENES NOW REPRODUCED
IN THE MOVING PICTURES. The
Examiner now denounces the pictures
under the section of the penal code re-
ferred to- which reads as follows:
Criminal conspiracy defined and
punishment fixed. If two or more per
sons conspire to commit ANY ACT in
furious to the public health, to PUBLIC
MORALS or for the perversion or OBJ
struction of justice or due administra-
tion of the laws, they are punishable by
IMPRISONMENT IN THE COUNTY
JAIL NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR,
OR BY FINE NOT EXCEEDING $1,000,
| OR BOTH"
The Examiner quotes District Attor-
ney Fredercks as saying that he be
lieVes this law gives him ground to
proceed against those who conspire
against the public morals by pre-
senting a picture show. We suggest to
the district attorney that the inexorable
logic of this opinion is that in erecting
a stage on a crowded street on the
Fourth of July, staging thereon the
same scenes that are depicted in the
films, and inviting the public to wit
ness the exhibition it now says is de-
grading and disgusting, the managers
and editors of the Examiner are guilty
under their own interpretation and the
one they credit to him, of AN ACT
| . INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC MORALS,
and therefore deserving of the penalty
of Imprisonment in the county jail not
exceeding one year or by fine not
! exceeding $1,000, or both.
The logic of the situation can't be
| escaped. The Examiner has recently
denounced the fight pictures as low,
disgusting and debasing, with which all
good citizens agree. Therefore the re-
production of the fight in flesh and
blood on July a by the Examiner was
low disgusting and debasing-rather
worse, if anything, because made more
vivid by the living pictures. If the eX-
hibition of the moving pictures consti-
tutes a conspiracy against public
morals, as the Examiner contends, then
the free exhibition to a vastly larger
audience of the Examiners pugilstic
youths REPRODUCING THE VERY
SAME SCENES DEPICTED IN THE
FIGHT FILMS, was a nagrant breach
of the law and actionable under section
1872 of the California penal code,
Furthermore, it is altogether prob
able, if this is the case, that in printing
i'm it's columns large, lurid photographs
of THE VERY SAME SCENES DE-
PICTED IN THE FIGHT FILMS the
Examiner was guilty Of repeating the
felony and is liable to an additional
years imprisonment, or fine of $1,000 or
both But we do not press this matter,
for in the opinion of The Herald the
penalty of one infraction is quite severe
enough to tit the crime. However, we
regard as Of VAST IMPORTANCE the
doctrine that ALL MEN SHOULD BE
EQUAL BEFORE THE Law.
Why should the law be enforced