Twin city review. [volume] (Champaign, Ill.) 19??-1929, 1925-06-26
..--i.-i--....:..;....i-.......,."i.......,.a
!. :,
+ Comment and Criticism :.
Observation-Disclosures.

When the supreme Court upheld
the constitutionality of the New York
State law against the preaching of Sc.
dition and anarchy, the red chickens
came home to roost.
1t is all reminiscent of book which
was written some few months ago by
W. j. Client, that astute student of
social movements, entitled, "The Reds
| Bring Reaction"
Every action, we are told, has an
equal and opposite reaction. The reds
started out to produce revolution.
They created beautiful propaganda
machine. This they still have and it
still pours forth its bales of propa-
ganda, its balloons of vapid oratory.
= =
David Lawrence, who writes for
many newspapers from Washington,
tells his readers that many states nov
may be expected to strengthen their
| anti-anarchy statutes. The border
line between free speech and license
is slender and hard to find. The Su-
preme Court has made it easier 1t
Will not be surprising if State legis-
lators follow New York and the Su-
preme Court. 1t will be natural.
The reds promised to overthrow
democracy, free government and to
| smash free institutions. What more
natural, then, than all those who are
ont red should say, well, we'll see
about that" and in seeing about it
| should go beyond the needs of the sit
uation in a desire to be absolutely
safe?
Are we so foolish Is not to under
stand how these things happen?
He whose house is once entered
strengthens his locks, not just to the
point of resistance, but on beyond to
what he believes to be a wide margin
of safety. The New York State
| statute and the United States Supreme
Court decision represents desire for
margin of safety. That's all.
We, the people of the United States,
do not propose to have our freedom
and our chance for democracy prog
reSs wrecked and ruined by flannel
mouthed morons who have maniac
vision and an insane irreSpOnSibility.
That, in very plain and simple
language, is the nub of the whole sit
uation. If you strip the court de-
cision of its vitals that's what you
will find. There is nothing surprising
about it, either.
Justices Brandeis and Holmes dis
scented. They did not agree with the
other justices. They are known as the
two liberals on the high bench.
These two justices thought the de
clSion jeopardized free speech. They
thought absolute freedom of speech
preferable to restriction for safety's
sake. They thought the menace in
sufficient to warrant the remedy laid
down in the law.
Many Americans will agree with
Justices BdandeiS and Holmes. But
that doesn't heln anything now.
1t does help some, however, to un-
derstand why this statute was adopted
and why the majority of the justices
upheld its conStitutionality.
ENtremism begets eXtremiSm.
An. interesting phase of the Ten
nesSee evolution war will devotion
when 1t Is discovered that Webster's
dictionary, the Century and the Fink
* WagnallS and all others of any
value give explicit information about
evolution.
evolution.
1t Is unlawful for teacher to read
the definition of evolution to his pu.
pils. 1t will be dangerous to refer
the students to the dictionary or Ia
any, encyclopedia in the library.
10 be consistent these books either
must be eNpurgated or thrown out OF
the schools Of the State.
Many bread-winners who are ON the
educational payroll are in hourly dan.
ger OF loss Of their positions and pros.
eeutlon by any petty official who see,
NJ TO act under the law as it stands.
As said before, this is not n matte,
oil polemicS or controversy about the