Baraboo weekly news. [volume] (Baraboo, Wis.) 1912-197?, 1921-03-17

Shall censors, national, state or To-
cal, be set up to prescribe what NOV
les may show and what they may not,
or shall they be allowed the same
freedom as the stage, the newspapers,
and the magazines.
This question has just been holly
debated in a packed meeting before
the commissioners of the District OF
Columbia. The immediate issue was
only a local one. Reformers asked that
the local movie producers be put on
probation for certain length OF time,
and if they failed to be good, that a
hoard be con gfibfukQflfhb J
board be constituted to censor their
productions under certain fixed rules.
The producers, the reforTners and
the public, which crowded in to near
the arguments, recognized that the
issue was really national one. To-
cal victory censorship would mean it's
>rapid extension. And more than cen
sorship of movies was involved. The
whole question Of the right of Amer1-
lcans to free expression is tied up in
the right of a motion picture produ-
Ger to- produce what he will, SUBJECT
to the statutes which afford 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 impressionable 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. IT. was
brought OFT that the movies aye al
ready censored N four states. and the
censorship was held up
as a model.
The producers defended their rights
from many different viewpoints. One
OF the strongest points they made
was sat 70 censor the JuoEt0u picture
s. unconstitutional an6 contrary to
:he theory of our present government
II IL admitted general" thu freedom
Of speech ard freedom Of the press
are essentials of a democracy, and are
necessary to the progress OF civil
ization. The Constitution specifc:.ll"
+Io% 10 c11011 he rncSGJ
in tn. I!r;t ID States tn abriGge O" re.
strain the right of free speech and a
free press. The motion pictures are
"a part of the press, obviously, or at
least stand in exactly the same re-
lation to the public. They are form
of art and medium of both news and
ideas. The constitution certainly
seems to protect such a medium from
censorship. 1t means if it means any
thing, that motion picture producer
has right to produce what he pleases,
Just as the owner Of a newspaper or
book publisher has a right to print what
he pleases. If he commits libel or
treason or indecency, there are stat
utes, police regulations under which
he can be prosecuted. But the Con
stitution, the producers argue, obvious
~ prohibits any law which shall say
in advance what shall be produced and
what shall not. If this restriction is
to be laid upon the movies, they con-
tend, then it is equally right to pass
laws saying in advance what the news
papers and magazines and book pub
fishers may prints and what they may
not.
Here, indeed, it was pointed out, the
whole question of personal liberty is
raised. If you once began taking away
the liberties of the individual for his