The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1959-07-31

Chaos In
The Mind

&N w q GOlSA0NI LHC VI LILY R1CDCnL Os6Ma
Supreme Court about philosophical and logical prin-
cipleS was richly illustrated by the fact that the nine,
justices. among them, produced six written opinions m
the case of the Lady Chatterley's Lover movie.
Not one of the opinions, however, faced up to the
fact-proved a million times over in history-that
f~alsehood is more dangerous to the human race than
pestllences, earthquakes, hurricanes or %nuclear
bombs.
The majority opinion brushed the problem aside
by simply saying that under the us. Constitution, adj
voeacy OF ideas = no matter how evil = cannot be
curbed by government.
The majority opinion did not so much as recog-
nize that ideas as such-in the abstract-are impos-
slble to the movies. In the films, ideas must always be
i~ncarnated in persons, and set forth not only in words,
but in actions, and in the plot.
THIS IS ONE of the basic errors of the present
Supreme Court-that it has extended to the movies,
Wlllynllly and without qualification, the same consti-
tutlonal freedom granted to speech and the press.
This is exceedingly odd, because a halfhour visit
TO the nearest theater ought to convince a Justice that
there is a difference between an idea in words, and an
idea humanity incarnated in actors and actresses.
But even if this were not true, still the court'x
language is much too sweeping in saying that the Con-
stitution restraints government from doing anything to
curb the advocacy of ideas-including the idea that
adultery can be proper.
If the court is right on that legal point, then the
American people sooner or later must realize the
necessity Of amending the Constitution to enable
government to place reasonable curbs upon advocacy
Of ideas.
OTHERWISE, some day some Hitler will arise in
our land, and will delude Americans into some such
madness as produced the massacres, tortures and.
b%utcheries of the Third Reich, with its Dachau horror
camps and its human-skin lampshades.
Justice Felix Frankfurter, in one of the six Chat
terley" opinions, said he doubted that the movie,
Lady Chatterleys Lover. would have offended even.
Victorian sensibilities. But that is not the point.
The point is the no-eXceptions language of the
majority opinion in saying that any government re-
Stralnt on advocacy of 0nV idea at all "StrikpS at tho
very heart of conStltutionally-protecte liberty"
The New York State Court of Appeals did not
agree in the least with the Supreme Court. The Court
of Appeals, in the decision which the Supreme Court
overthrow, banned the C~hatterley movie because it
"alluringly portrayed adultery as proper behavior"
THE OF APPEALS, which presumably
can read the Constitution as well as the justices of
the Supreme Court can. did not at all consider that
poisonous ideas are totally protected by the basic law
of the land.
Let us turn now to a third court-thet Us. Cir.
cult Court of Appeals-Which recently upheld the
State Department in banning travel in Red China by
American neWsmen.
The parallel is not exact, but the thinking of the
Circuit Court seems. to me far better than that of the
Supreme Court in the C~hatterley case.
A newsmans right to travel, said the Circuit
Court, is part of the freedom of the press" But this
valid generalization does not support unrestrained
conclusions" The court went on:
Liberty itself is Inherently a restricted thina.
Liberty. is q product of order. There is no liberty in
anarchy or in chaos. Liberty is achieved by rules,
which eorreiste every mans actions 10 every other
mans rights and thus, by mutual restrictions one Up.
on The other, achieve a result of relative freedom. !.
THE mere day-to-day maintenance of The order
which lnsures liberty requires restrictions upon in=
dividvai rights" ~
Let me repeat one sentence: There is no liberty
in anarchy or chaos" | hold that either the Us.
Supreme Court, sooner or later, must face the fact
that ultimately there is no liberty in Intellectual an
archy, or else the American people must amend the
Constitution to establish that principle beyond the
courts power to weaken it. r~.
~ - s@vs