Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-03-14
CENSOR DEBATE
SHOWS VARIETY
OF VIEWPOINTS
Issue Started in District Of
Columbia Has Become
Nationwide.
BOTH SIDES GET AIRING


and what they may not, or shall they
ba allowed the same freedom as ths
stage, the newspapers and the maya
zines?
This question has Just been holly de-
bated in u packed meeting before the
commissioners Of the District Of Column
bia. The immediate issue was only 10
cal one. Reformers asked that the local
movie producers be put on probation for
a certain length of time, and II they
failed to be good, that a board be con-
stituted to censor their productions under
certain fixed rules.
The producers, the reformers and the
public, which crowded in to hear the
arguments, recognized that the issue was
really a national one. A local victory for.
censorship would mean its rapid extern
sion. And more than censorship of the
movies was involved. The whole QUes-
ton of the right Of Americans to free ex-
preston is tied up in the right of a
motion picture producer to produce what
he will, subject to the statutes which af-
ford protection against libel, indecency
and treason.
Those who favor censorship brought
forward the arguments that have been
used in it's behalf many times before.
They asserted that the movies show love
scenes which are suggestive and scenes
Of violence. The implication is that i'm
pressiOnable youths witnessing such
scenes on the screen will be impelled to
initiate them. Therefore, in the interests
Of public morals some measure must be
taken to prevent the showing Of such
scenes. 1t was brought out that the
movies are already censored in four
States, and the Pennsylvania censorship
was held up as a model
PRODUCERS ARGUE
ILLEGAL RESTRAINT.
The producers defended their right to
freedom from many different viewpoints.
One of the strongest points they made
was that to censor the motion pictures
is unconstitutional and contrary to the
theory of our present government. 1t is
admitted generally that freedom Of speech
and freedom of the press are essentials
Of democracy. and are necessary to the
progress of civilization. The Constitu-
ton specifically provides that no law
shall be passed in the United States
to abrldge or restrain the right of free
speech and a free press. The motion
pictures are part Of the press, obvious
ly, or at least stand In exactly the same
relation TO the public. They are a form
of art and medium both Of news and Of
ideas. The Constitution certainly seems
to protect such a medium from a CEN
sirship. 1t means, if it means anything.
that q motion picture producer has a
right to produce what he pieases, just
as the owner Of newspaper or a book
publisher has a right to print what he
pleases. If he commits libel or treason
or lndecency, there are statutes and po-
lice regulations under which he can be
prosecuted. But the Constitution, the
producers argue, obviously prohibits any
law which shall say in advance what
shall he produced and what shall not.
If this restriction is to be laid upon the
movies. they contend then it il equally
right to pass laws saying in advance
what the newspapers and magazines and
book publishers may print and what
they may not.
Here, indeed, It was pointed out, the
whole question of personal liberty was
raised. If you once begin taking away
the liberties of the individual for his
own good, it was argued, it Is very hard
to draw the line. Liquor having been
taken away from him, there are now
robust movements afoot to ban tobacco,
to ban amusement on Sunday, to ban
dancing and short skirts and high heels.
And if you admit any one of these. you
I
your liberties, and soon the whole fam.
lily of them will have left you. There are
just two theories possible. Government
may be regarded as a means Of organic
/ ing society in order to secure the rights
Of the individual against the aggression
both Of other individuals and other gov
ernments. In that case, it should i'm
pose the least possible restraint.
1t should let a man do as he pieases,
so long as he does not trespass on the
right of any one else to do the same
This, it is contended, is the theory upon
which our government is founded.
ALL LIBERTIES
OR NONE.
Once you start taking away liberties,
you must abandon this theory altogether.
For no line can be drawn You must
then regard government as a means of
regulating every detail of individual life,
prescribing what each and all of US shall
eat, drink, wear, how and when we shall
make love, what we shall look at and
what We shall read. This latter certainly
seems to be the purpose and ideal Of the
reform movement. 1t would make us
morally perfect by legal enactment. The
proponents of freedom say that this Is
a demonstrated impossibility in the first
place. In the second place they claim
that it would thwart the development Of
individuality, which is the really val
liable human quality and the source Of all
progress. 1t would tend, they say, TO
make of US vast aggregation of human
machines, moved not by individual taste
and intelligence, but by a cIockwork OF
law and regulation. That is what 1t
would do if it succeeded. Prohibition is
pointed out by some as an example of
what happens If a people refuses to ac4
cept such regulations of conduct.
Returning to the matter of censorship,
its record was attacked and defended.
The friends Of censorship claimed that 1t
has done much good in States where it
has been put Into effect, by saving the
youth OF those States from witnessing
many scenes Of love and violence. The
opponents Of censorship claimed that 10
has been ridiculous and arbitrary
wherever it has been tried. They cited
the case Of q lady appointed to censor
the movies who prohibited all funera1
scenes and other scenes suggesting
death on the ground that she had re-
Gently suffered a bereavement and 1t
narrowed her feelings to witness such
scenes.
The opponents claimed that censorship
has always been arbitrary. They claim
that the whole public must Judge of
production and that one individual or
group of individuals cannot fail to be
moved largely by prejudice and other
individual peculiarities. Equally, they
say, it is impossible to apply a set of
rules to a work or art. Thus in Eng
land until a few years ago there was
national censorship of the stage. Under
this law 1t was found necessary to sup