The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1959-07-17
JOSEPH BREIC-
And The People
The Court

Inc decision III The case OF tile movie, Lazy Chdt-
Lover" brings into sharp focus a grave differ
ence of opinion between the present US. Supreme
Court, on the one hand, and on the other hand a large
proportion of the American people, including many
judges, lawyers, civic and patriotic organizations, and
national and state lawmakers.
The difference goes to the deepest roots of Ameri-
can society, and involves its ultimate survival.
The heart of the difference is this: the American
people do not accept Intellectual anarchy. They hate
and fear it. They know that if it prevails, they will
have to live with it and its consequences.
But the Supreme Court in effect says that the
Constitution establishes and protects Intellectual an
archv.
MANY COMMENTATORS, in recent years, have
puzzled publicly over the era of Sen. Joseph Mccarthy.
which divided Americans bitterly.
The explanation of that anguiShed time, however,
is plain enough. For decades, communists had been
taking raw and cynical advantage of American free
dom to labor for its destruction, and for the ruination
of everything most precious to Americans-of all the
fundamental decencies which make possible our ma
tional happiness and neighborliness.
All through those decades, government, both
national and state, appeared helpless to do anything
effective to protect the nation against the Red con.
spiracy. which aimed essentially at the subyersion and
debauchery of the American mind.
This helplessness stemmed basically from a
liberalism which shrugged its shoulders over truth
and untruth. and therefore was incapable of curbing
the communist merchants of falsehood.
THERE GREW AMONG the American people a
frustrated fury against this Pilate-Gke attitude of
hand-Washing.
OCH. NllAd1Juy dNA0ICu a q dud dn&ly lDI@
lowing because people had nowhere else to 60. They
did not want Mccarthy in the sense that he specifically
was the answer to their desperate need. What they
wanted was action-and Mccarthy offered it. Unfor-
tunately, what he provided was formless agitation
without wisdom, prudence or clear detectives. In the
end, the people felt themselves let down again.
Today, Americans once more feel themselves de-
prlVed of government leadership in a most serious
matter-the welfare of tomorroW'S citizens.
The Supreme Court has ruled in the Chatterley
case, that government has no power, under the Constl-
tuition, to protect the people against the advocacy of
ideas, no matter how dangerous, SubverSiVe, immoral,
degenerate. Acts" alone may be forbidden or re-
Stricted; ideas may not.
IN THE OPINION written by Justice Potter Ste
Wart, the court held that all ideas, however poisonous
or destructive, are protected by the Constitution in
the sense that government is restrained from curbing
their advocacy or propagation.
The Constitution, the court said, protects
advocacy of the opinion that adultery may sometimes
be proper. no less than advocacy of socialism or the
single tax"
The American people will know instlnctively what
anybody is free to produce movies aimed at teaching
every abomlnation to American youth, In the form of
ideas presented as admirable?
THE OUR is in its marble hall; but American
boys and girls are in movie theaterS or outdoor movies.
And now the law cannot forbid showing of films that
advocate the idea of fornlcation, adultery, cruelty, con-
tempt for authority, and every other moral insanity.
To bring this matter right down to earth, how is
any legislature to outlaw films which for examplet
teach that it is right and proper to massacre Jews, or
to lynch Negroes, or to rape children, or to assasslnate
teachers? -
The Lady Chatterey decision is precisely as
serious as that. And the deadly fault Of lt-as In the.
ill-famed Champaign, Ill. school ruling-lies in its
sweeping, across-the-board, no-exceptions language.