The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1959-08-14
JOSEPH BRETG-
Mind Control,
My Eye

Well do | know the kind of argument that will be
used in the attempt to silence or discredit critics of
the US. Supreme Court decision in the Lady Chat
terleyS Lover movie.
1t will be said, for example, that to curb legally
the advocacy of any idea, however evil, in the movies
would be to establish government thought control"
The words are a lie. They constitute one of those
crafty eplthets which are used nowadays by those who
want to stop others from thinking.
The purpose is TO put people on the defensive by
~attacklng. them with accusations, instead OF offering
rational disputation. Essentially, the method is as low
and as unintellectual as namecaling or tonguestick-
ing-out.
THE THOUGHT CONTROL" cry is nonsensical.
1t is impossible for anybody's thoughts to be control-
ed by any one but himself; and each of us has the
grayest duty before God and before our fellowmen to
exercise such control.
There is, however, such a thing as persuasion.
There is such a thing as teaching. There is such a
thing as suggestion. And nobody is more teachable
or suggestible than a throng of young folks in a movie
house or an outdoor theatre. Nowhere else is thought
control approached more closely.
Therefore the "Chatterley" decision, if it stands
unmodified either by future court rulings or by action
of Congress and the people, means precisely this
that the nearest possible thing to thought control is
handed without restraint or qualification into the
hands of the people who make moving pictures.
] DO NOT for one moment believe that the
American citizenry will countenance the transfer of
government from Washington to Hollywood. But that
is the prospect if government is to be totally pre-
vented from curbing in any way the advocacy of any
ideas whatever by the movies.
If the films are free under the Constitution to
advocate adultery-Which is the Supreme Courts in-
terpretation-then the movies are constitutionally
free to advocate assassination of government officials,
mass contempt for law and order, and violent over
throw Of American government.
Adultery is a crime, so defined by law; and if
nothing can be done to prevent advocacy Of that crime
through ideas lncarnated IN actors and plots, then
nothing can be done to curb advocacy of other crimes,
including bank robbery, train W~recking, riot. pillage,
burning, footing, Wanton torture of animals, kidnap-
ping of babies, dynamlting of school buildings and
courthouseS, or anything else you care to mention.
IF can turn out films. without let
or hindrance, urging the idea that adultery in certain
circumstances is right and proper-and can do so
"alluringly"-the Hollywood is at full liberty to pro-
duce movies which alluringly teach youngsters that
it is good to murder people in public parks with
SWitchkniyes or tire irons.
There is no abomination which cannot be pro-
posed to audiences as desirable behavior under the
Lady Chatterley" decision as it stands.
BoSley CroWther, a movie writer for the New
York Times, may be a good movie writer, for all |
know; but as a philosopher he leaves something to
be desired. He welcomed with open arms the 'Chat-
terley" decision, and soothingly assured readers that
everything is going to be %jimdandy.
He SAID NOBODY needs to fear the flooding of
movie screens with filth because the American
public won't patronize downright offensive films"
! don't know what kind of dream castle CroWther lives
in, or what he considers downright offensive films"
The fact is that a great many people are patronizing
immoral films right now. But there is more to the
matter than that.
What CroWther does not realize is that the vi1est
kind of ideas can be advocated in inoffensive manner:
and this is exactly the deadly danger lurking in the
Supreme Courts decision. The more alluring, suave
and polished the presentation, the more fatal.