Motion Picture Story Magazine (Feb 1914 - Sep 1916 (assorted issues))

TEE GREAT DEBATE 7:; on any subject, being held, of course, accountable to the law for libel, gross immorality, etc. Now these struggles were all against censorship. Censors were known from the days of ancient Rome — men who set themselves up to guide their fellows in what they should or should not do. In mediaeval times the Church, and sovereigns who acted in cooperation with the Church, were censors who laid down rules for the guidance of the multitude on the subject of religion and morals. With the invention of printing, first the Church and then the State became the censor and required the licensing of every book and paper before it could be issued. Then, with the development of the stage, that, too, became the obj e c t of censors h i p, so that plays, before they could be performed, had first to receive the license of the censor. When our government was formed, the struggle against these inquisitions, in this country at least, had been won. Censorship was to have no foothold on American soil, and, therefore, the first amendment to the Constitution provides that : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Probably' every State in the Union has some similar provision in its State Constitution. In New York and in Ohio, for example, we find it embodied in substantially the following language: Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. "The suggestion of censorship is a denial of personal liberty, of free speech and of a free press." Now, I ask my readers to ponder that provision of our Constitutions. It represents, or is supposed to represent, the American ideal. It is the concrete statement of what man had fought for during many centuries. It is an epitome of human rights. It is the principal article of the treaty of peace between the common man and the tyrants who sought to think, speak, and write for him. It recalls as banished the sorrow of ages, the death of martyrs and the Spanish Inquisition. Is the idea repugnant to us that the State decree a National religion, with forms and ceremonies that we must adopt? Is the idea repugnant to us that the State insist that no criticism of its constitution or officers should be uttered ? Is the idea repugnant to us that the State see to it that no newspaper or book is issued without first receiving the approval of a licensing authority? Merely to suggest such things in this age of freedom is like a proposition to arm our soldiers with bows and arrows. We would resist, as a most serious impairment of our personal liberty, any attempt to take away these great fundamental rights. Why cannot it be seen that the suggestion of censorship is a denial of personal liberty, a denial of free speech and a free press — because the Motion Picture tells its story just as effectively as the spoken or written word? The advocates of censorship say, in effect, to the American people : "These Motion Pictures are a source of danger to you and your children; they depict crime, scandal, immorality; some of them are in shocking bad taste. If you should look at these pictures, or if your children should see them, you and they would become contaminated. We believe that the effect of these pictures would be to suggest to you and your children that you and they should become mur