Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1921-02-10
MOVIE CENSORSHIP

The constitution OF the United
States guarantees to all persons the
right to speak: write and publish their
sentiments on all subjects. holding
them responsible for the abuse Of that
right. Public sentiment demands, and
the courts declare, that the exercise
Of that right is subject to certain
limitations under extraordinary cir
cumstances, such as the existence of
a state Of war. But under all ordinary
circumstances the right Of the indi-
vidual to full freedom of expression
may be respected.
The individual may be punished for
the commission Of overt acts in VIOLA
ton Of the law, and under certain
circumstances individuals may be re-
strained from the commission Of such
acts. But aside from the few excep-
tional cases for which provision is
made, there is no such thing as the
restraint of the indipidual from the
free expression of his sentiments in
advance of such 'expresson without
violation of. the constitution: The in
dividual may say what he pleases.
II he says hat which is unlawful, he
may be punished.
quarters, a demand for the legal CEN
sorship, Of moving pictures. 1t is
charged that some pictures are indie
cent, and are therefore utterly de-
moralizing. and hat some are silly
and vapid. and therefore tend to
waste of time and money and to the
creation of undesirable habits. In
order to remedy these evils it is urged
that there be vested in some official
body, endowed with legal powers,
authority t. pass on all pictures in
advance Of the public exhibition, and
to determine which shall be shown
and which shall not.
There are pictures and Pictures.
Some are good. some worthless, and
some vicious. All thai is said against
the worthless and vicious may be
granted. And yet when we undertake
to say that the moving picture man
shall not exhibit his pictures until
some person or board has approved
them we bump squarely up against
the constitution and its guarantees OF
liberty.
We may enact statutes, az we have
already done, against the exhibition of
indecent pictures. We may make
such exhibitions a criminal offense.
Presumably we may make it. a crime
for n to have an indecent film in
his possession. and may seize and
destroy the film. And we may arrest
and punish the exhibitor after he has
committed his offense, and try him
and send him to prison. But when we
undertake to censor his stuff in ad-
vance we are depriving him of his
constitutional right to publish.
If it is permissible to exercise this
censorship it is permissible to have
some official board pass on every
book in advance of publications; on
every issue OF every newspaper before
it goes to press; the require the sub
mission to such q board of the manu-
script Of every speech and sermon
which Is to be delivered. To concede
that is to concede the right Of the
state, through its appropriate agen-
cies. to pass judgment in advance on
every form of public %utterance.
Undoubtedly the adoption of such
a policy would result in the elmina-
tion Of many useless and injurious
things. But who wants such a result
at such a price? What board is fit
to be entrusted with such powers?
If the moving picture people and
the people Of q community can agree
on some form of unofficial censorship,
such as in vogue in some localities,
we'll and good. But the successful
operation Of such a plan demands
greater vision and liberality than is
usually shown by those who demand
legal censorship, for the censorship
enthusiasts, II given a free hand,
would eliminate about everything that
makes the moving picture attractive.
The moving picture II used, and
will be used more largely. for pur-
poses OF education, for the promotion
Of science: and for the incubation OF
morals. But the moving picture the
atre, a. In institution, ts a place of
entertainment, = fact which many Of
those who seek to reform It, mani
testify overlook.