Evening star., 1961-01-29
All Is Not Lost

century since the late Justice Nc
Reynolds, dissenting In the Supreme
Courts 5 to ruling in the famous gold
case, solemnly announced from the
bench that "the Constitution is gone"
The learned justice, however, was mis-
taken. A long line OF decisions In the
intervening years shows beyond question
that the Constitution still is very much
with us, still very much Of q going
concern.
The same thing, we think, will
prove to be true Of the courts 5 to 4
decision in the Chicago moving picture
censorship case. In our belief, the dire
suggestions that the court majority has
ripped the First Amendment from the
Constitution and torn 1t to shreds are
contrived from the stuff that dreams
are made Of To those who profess to
be literally terrified" by this ruling,
we say: Calm yourselves. Try to sleep
well at night. For the last bulwark of
our freedoms has not been ground into
the dust.
Actually, the majority decision
rests on q narrow base. The Times Film
Corporation Of New York wanted to
exhibit in Chicago a Aim titled "Don
JUAN" An ordinance there requires that
a permit be obtained after designated
local authorities view picture for the
purpose Of censoring It If they consider
it unit under standards prescribed by
the ordinance. In this case, the corpo-
ration applied for the permit, was pre-
pared to pay the fee, but refused to
allow a viewing Of the Aim. It asked
the court to order the issuance Of the
permit without submission Of the Aim
and to restrain the city ofilcials from
interfering with the exhibition Of the
picture. This, the majority, consisting
Of Justices Clark, Frankfurter, Harlan,
Whitaker and Stewart, was unwilling
to do.
Justice Clark, writing the majority
opinion, said the issue presented is
whether "the ambit of constitutional
protection includes complete and
absolute freedom to exhibit, at least
once, any and every kind Of motion
picture" For emphasis, he added: "It
is that question alone which we decide"
Neither the Chicago officials nor the
court had the slightest idea what the
film portrayed. They were completely
"in the dark" And why? Because the
film corporation claimed "that the
nature Of the Aim is irrelevant, and that
even If this Aim contains the basest type
Of pornography, or Indictment to riot,
or forceful overthrow Of orderly govern
ment, 1t may nonetheless be shown with
out prior submission for examination"
It was on this circumstance that the
majority, rightly, we think, grounded
its ruling. We do not believe this means,
as charged by dissenting Chief Justice
Warren, that the majority is in full
retreat" from earlier censorship deci-
sions. II some element Of retreat is in
volved, however, 1t would seem to us
to be evidence that the court, In the
past, had gone too far in the opposite
direction.
For the benefit, once again, of those
who are quaking with fear as a result
Of this ruling, we quote the last sentence
Of Justice Clark'S opinion: "At this time
we say no more than this-that we are
dealing only with motion pictures and,
even as to them, only in the context of
the broadside attack presented on this
record" The American citizen, we
believe, still will be free to speak his
piece tomorrow and for many tomorrows