The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1959-07-10

ship. But | cannot understand
why il should be thought that
the process of constitutional
judgement in this realm some
how stands apart from that
involved in other fields .
Meanwhile Justice William
o. Douglas and Justice Black
were waging a spirited cam
paign against government cen
sorship in any way. shape or
form. Justice Douglas. Joined
by Mr.. Black, stated flatly:
Il can find in the First
Amendment no room for any
censor whether he is scanning
an editorial. reading a news
broadcast, editing a novel or
a play, or p%reviewing a NOV
ie."
Justice Douglas struck out
at the four states which at
present have film censorship
Iaws-Ksnsas. Maryland. New
York and Virginia. Referring
to their laws as the residual
part of censorship" he said
the removal would constitute
the elimination of an institU-
zion that intrudes on First
Amendment rights"
Justice Black asserted that
prior censorship OF moving
pictures like prior censorship
of newspapers and books vio-
lates the First and Fourteenth
Amendments He warned the
nation against the dangerous
road of censorship"
BY contrast Justice Harlan
defended obscenity laws and
pointed out that the Supreme
Court is carefully ab%staining"
from holding hat they are
without qualification con
stitutionallv ~impermissible."
Justice Stewards majority
opinion confined itself TO the
statement that there was at
present mo occasion to con-
slider the contention that
the state is entirely without
power to require films of any
kind TO be licensed prior TO
their exhibition"
Nor need we here deter
mine whether. despite prob
lens peculiar to motion Die
lures, the controls which a
state may impose upon this
medium of expression are pre-
cisely coeXtensiVe with those
allowable for Q $ pape rs,
books. or individual speech"
he added. 1T is enough for
the present case to reaftlrm
that motion pictures are with
in the First and Fourteenth
Amendments basic protec-
ton"
New York's much disputed
film licensing laws have in re
cent years been the testing
ground for several constltu-
tional struggles over he
problem of censorship VS.. free
speech.
In 1852 the Supreme Court
reversed a ban on the film
''The Miracle" 1t held that
the term "sacrilegious." under
which the movie had been re-
fused a license, was too vague.
Likewise the court held two
years later. the term I'M
moral" which had been used
10 ban the film La Ronde,'
was too vague.
After that decision, New
York amended its law to de-
fine immoral" as Sexual
MINORS lify." II was under this
definition that Lady Chat
terIey's Lover" was banned in
May, 1855. The ban was up
held by the New York Uni
versity Board of Regents, re-
versed by the Appellate Di-
vision of the New York State
Supreme Court. and upheld
by the State Court of Appeals.
before the case tame before
the Supreme Court.
By coincidence. Lady Chat
terley's Lover is the center
of another legal storm current
ly brewing on the horizon. An
unexpurgated edition of the
1923 novel was recently ban
ned from the mails by L. S.
Postmaster General Arthur
Summerfield. The novels pub
fishers and a book club have
taken the case to court.
This dispute, too. may fin
ally be settled by the nine
justices of the Supreme Court.