Omaha daily bee., 1916-01-30

AY ing pictures, as proposed by a
bill now before congress, is
- en- & n d erin & considerable
fk4E9&N heated debate, and not a little
writing of arguments on both
sides The proposal Is assailed from many
points. one of the chief arguments Of the
opponents being that 1t is an infring-
ment on state rights; that a national
censorship of films will be followed by
a national censorship of the theater, and
this will continue until all amusements
are brought under the regulation Of some
form Of governmental oversight One of
the most recent of the written arguments
in support of the opposition to the finn
censorship comes from a prominent film
maker-for that matter. the greater part
of the objections to the project are from
the managers-who sets up that It is an
abridgment OF the right OF free speech.
He contends. rather ingenuously, that the
movie" Is the latest form of giving pub
LEFTY to current events. and that any
interference with its operations is In the
direction OF an attack on the free press.
-
This department Of The Bee in times
past has taken high ground against the
creation OF public censor. either by the
federal or state governments. It has been
contended that public opinion will serve
in the long run as the best possible form
of criticism, and that the managers must
in the end bow before this as ultimate.
Sslt the managers have so far outrun
public thought II is almost a question as
to whether the conclusion so carefully
reached might not at this time be revised.
II there be anything OF the nature of a
well grounded demand for public censor
ship OF the movies. or the stage in any
of its manifestations, 1t is because OF the
actions of the managers and producers
themselves. For many months a rivalry
has existed as to which could go the
farthest in the direction of outraging
decency. which could press the closest
to the verge and yet be permitted TO
continue the exhibition. Several seasons
ago at least three pornographic plays.
some Of them since done into films. were
stopped by the police authorities In New
York because of nauseous vulgarity OF
their action. Each OF these plays pleaded
for the right to show because II was
dealing with actual conditions" In each
case the manager set up that he sought
only to serve the public by producing
a warning to the unsuspecting OF the
dangers that lurked in the shadows. The
neither did the manager have a thought
above filling his purse with the money
Iured into his hands by the parade Of
actual filth. What is true OF the stage
is true of the movies. Producers have
We'd here with a purpose of making SEN
sational appeals to public curiosity. and
have achieved some wonderful results
m the line. Such exhibitions lose their
value from any standpoint except as ap-
pealing to the less worthy nature OF the
beholders. and are doubly dangerous, for
they are patronizsd by the immature In
far greater proportion than Is the theater.
Their only contribution Is TO the lowering
of the general standard OF morality. and
as such they do not deserve TO be eoun-
tenanoed.
It is interesting in this connection to
record the fact that one great division
OF the amusement industry went ser
iously about the task OF censoring itself.
For many years buriesque hourished In
different parts OF the country, the local
homes being generally classified as va
rieties," 'honkytonks and the like. and
each in it's own way affording class
Of amusements not especially elevating
and sometimes actually depraving. With
the establishment Of the great buriesque
circuit combination. under the name
OF the Columbia Amusement COM
pany. came q condition that could not
long exist BurIesque was lifted from the
obscure theaters and set on plane where
II attracted more general attention. Not
very long time was needed 70 convince
the men at the head OF the new enter
prise that the old form OF entertainment"
!, E'uid have to be considerably altered.
~ II were 10 survive. So they set about