The Rock Island Argus and daily union. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1920-1923, 1921-03-12
Frederic Haslsin's I.ette,|'
Pro and Con the Movie Cen.or.

line. Liquor having he.
away from him, there srs ea
oust movements afoot to n" 70
nacco. to ban amusement o ~ ~ o
DAY, to ban dancing and - y
skirts and high heels. And y
ADMIT any one Of these, you q
them all. Say goodbye 10 =.
your Liberties, and soon the $ -. =
family OF them will have lem ~
Inere are just two theories y. ~
siole. Government may be- ~
Cd ~ q means of orsanixin, y
ciety in order to secure thu -.
OF the individual against n. 10y =
gressions both Of other iudivis,.I!
and other governments. In ,s..
case. it should impose The ,...'
possible restraint.
1t should let a man do :.
pleeses. so long as he dos =, =
trespass on the right Of anv Nv ~
else to do the same. This i, ~
Sv..s"uu' IL the theory unop
which our government is founs.s s
All Liberties or None.
Once you start taking avav IN
erties you must abandon this n.
DRY altogether. For no linz -,
be drawn. You must than r.,.I
government as a means Of re,,'
lating every detail of indiyiSsS,l
life. prescribing what each ana Il, ~
OF US shall eat. drink, wear IN.
and when We shall make low.
what We shall look at and what :.
shall read. This latter oertainIv
seems to be the purpose and idesl
OF the movement. 1t would MAKE
US morally perfect by legal eoact.
ment. The proponents Of freedom
say that this is a demonstrated i'm
possibility in the first place In
the second place they claim th,t
it would thwart the development
Of individuality. which ia ths
really valuable human quality and
the source Of all progress. Il
would tend. they say, to make Of Ms
a vast aggregation of human ma.
chimes, moved not by individual
taste and intelligence. but by /,
I clockwork OF law and regulation
That is what it would do II it sue.
ceeded. Prohibition is pointed GU,
by some as an example Of wha,
happens il people refuse to &C.
cept such regulations Of conduct.
Returning to the matter Of cen.
sorship. its record was attacked
and defended. The friends Of cen.
sorship claimed that it has don,
much good in states where 1t hs,
been put into effect. by saving til.
youth Of those states from wit.
| Messing many scenes Of love and
violence. The opponents Of cen
sorship claimed that it has beer
ridiculous and arbitrary whereve,
it has been tried. They cited thu
case OF q lady appointed to censor
the movies who prohibited all fu.
neral scenes and other scenes yug.
costing death on the ground that
! she had recently suffered q BE-
| reavement and it narrowed Der
feelings 70 witness such scenes.
The opponents claimed that cen
| sorship has always been arbitrary
i They claim that the whole publi'
must Judge Of a production AM
that one individual or group Of in
dividuals cannot fail to be move
+, largely by prejudices, and othe
individual peculiarities. Equally
they say. it is impossible to appl
a set Of rules to work Of ar
,, Thus in England until few year
ago there was national censorshi
of the stage. Under this law
was found necessary to suppress
| the work OF some of the creates
dramatists. including Ibsen. Sha'
and finally the great classic. scph
ocles. who had been studied
English schoolboys for gener'
| tons.
The result OF the hearing seen
ed to be inconclusive. At lea
the arguments Of both sides got
good airing. The sympathies
the crowd seemed to be with U
producers rather than the r
! Porvare