The Rock Island Argus and daily union. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1920-1923, 1921-03-12

Shall censors, national, state or
local, be set up to prescribe what
the movies may show and what
they may not, or shall they be al
lowed the same freedom a. the
stage, the newspapers and the
magazines?
This question has just been hot
ly debated in a packed meeting be-
fore the commissioners Of the Dis
trict Of Columbia. The immediate
issue was only q local one. Re-
formers asked that the local movie
producers be put on probation for
a certain length Of time, and II
they failed to be good, that . board
be constituted to censor their pro-
auctions under certain fixed rules.
The producers, the reformers
and the public, which crowded in
to hear the arguments, recognized
that the issue was really q nation
al one. A local victory for CEN
sorship would mean its rapid ex-
tension. And more than censor
ship of the movies was involved.
The whole question. Of the right Of
Americans to free expression is
tied UP in the right Of . motion
picture producer 10 produce what
he will. subject to the statutes
which afford protection against Ii
bel, indecency and treason.
Those who favor censorship
brought forward the arguments
that have been used in its behalf
many times before. They assert
ed that the movies show love
scenes which are suggestive, and
scenes of violence. The implica-
ton 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 show
ing Of such scenes. 1t was brought
out that the movies are already
censored in four states, and the
Pennsylvania censorship was held
up as model.
Is Censorship Constitutional.
The producers defended their
right to freedom from many diff
ferent 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 govern
ment. 1t is admitted generally that
freedom of speech and freedom Of
the press are essentials Of q democ-
racy, and are necessary to the
progress of civilization. The con-
stitution specifically provides that
no law shall be passed in the
United States to abridge or restrain
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 a
form OF art and medium both Of
news and IT ideas. The constitu-
ton certainly seems to protect
such a medium from a censorship.
1t means. if it means anything,
that a motion picture producer has
a right to produce what he pleases,
just as the owner of a newspaper
or book publisher has a right to
print what he pleases. II he COM
mits libel or treason or indecency,
there are statutes and police reg
ulations under which he can be
prosecuted. But the constitution,
the producers argue. obviously
prohibits any law which shall say
in advance what shall be produced
and what shall not. II this re-
striction is to be laid upon the
movies, they contend, then it is
equally right to pass laws saying
in advance what the newspapers
and magazines and book publish
ers may print and what they may
not.
Here, indeed. it was pointed out,
the whole question Of personal lib
erty is raised. II you once begin
taking away the liberties OF the
individual for his own good, it was
largued, it is very hard to draw the