The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1959-08-28
JOSEPH BREIC-
Literary Or
Legal Ruling

| regret that | cannot now drop the Chatterley
subject, as | had hoped. Something has been added.
We are faced with the decision of Federal Judge
Frederick van Pelt Bryan of New York who oyerruled
the Post Office Department ban on maiings of the
novel, Lady Chatterley's Lover
realize that the notoriety given to the book, and
to the film based on it, increases the patronage of
both. That is unfortunate; but the principles involved
in the Supreme Courts decision in favor of the movie,
are too important to be passed over.
Let me outline the reasoning with which Judge
Bryan supported his argument that the unexpurgat-
ed book is not obscene within the meaning of the
law.
He said that the postmaster general has no spe-
cial competence to determine what constitutes OBJ
scenity," or what exceeds the bounds of contempt
rary community Standards Such questions, he held,
belong to the courts.
STRANGELY, however, Judge Bryan proceeded
to talk as if he himself had some special competence
in the field, not of law, but of literature.
He delivered the judgment that d. H.. Lawrence.
author of the book, was lone of the most important
novelists writing in the English language in this GEN.
fury"
Lawrence, he asserted, was a writer of UNI
doubted artistic integrity"
Judge Bryan wrote as if these opinions were I'M
questionable.
ter that, he alleged that there is no doubt Of it's
literary merit"
Why a Judge. as Judge, should have any compe-
tence to hand down literary dictums from on high, |
cannot imagine.
UDc asserted that the books detail
ed adulterous immoralities "are relevant to the plot
and to the development of the characters"
He admitted that these passages might arouse
morbid and lustful' desires in the average
reader. But he argued that they were integral to
the book. Therefore the book is not obscene within
the meaning of the law.
If so, the law needs changing. Otherwise we are
faced with this-anybodyc can write any kind of vile
ness as long as the job is done with some literary
competence, and as long as the filth is relevant
NO CONSIDERATION was given by Judge Bryan
to the fact that an author can make his point without
descending into indecency.
Neither was the ommon good the welfare of
the people and the nation mentioned. The statute
was interpreted entirely in the light of the freedom
i would call it license - of writer's and publishers
Judge Bryan next examined the question wheth-
er the book offends contemporary community stand
ards, which is one of the tests laid down by the SUI
preme Court in determining obscenity.
He argued that the book has had general ac-
ceptance,' The critics were unanimous" And
leading journals of opinion welcomed the publica-
ton
WHAT CRITICS and journals does Judge Bryan
read? Does a sale of a few hundred thousand copies,
IN a nation of IT'S million. constitute general accept
anceg = Is this what is meant by contemporary COM
'munlty standards?'
Judge Bryan held that as our society stands to-
day, novel after novel is published with frank de-
scrlptlons7 and "four-letter words" Therefore the
Lawrence book does not exceed the outer limits of
tolerance"
This means that as books get viler and viler, the
outer limits" will be extended until absolutely moth
ing will be judged obscene by the courts. The door is
open to moral anarchy, as it is open to intellectual
anarchy after the Supreme Courts movie decision.
Freedom is let loose to destroy freedom by
~wrecking truth and morality which are freedoms
foundations.