Camera - April 14, 1923 to February 16, 1924 (April 1923-February 1924)

'The Digest of the Motion Picture Industry' 4*PERBfIX'*l-vl Discussion o f the Action of the Police Relative to the Motion Picture Directors9 Association's Recent Entertainment (Continued from Editorial Page). people ever hesitated to give their full and hearty support to other people's social gatherings that had called upon them for entertainment or co-operation? Have THEY ever cried "permit" when some civic enterprise came to them in charity's name and asked their aid? Have they ever conducted themselves in such a manner as to warrant this absolutely uncalled-for and insulting interference from the city of Los Angeles or any of its public officials? THIS WAS NOT A PUBLIC AFFAIR! It was simply an affront to the motion picture industry, for a similar event continued until long after midnight in another section of the city, WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE POLICE. It was, as Fred Niblo stated, "a rank discrimination against the motion picture industry," and it is now high time that the film people arise and declare their rights. We have been subjected to abuse and insult from numbskulls and crackbrains too long, and it is now up to us to reveal the insidious and sinister discrimination against us being made by the long-hairs who pull the strings behind our city government and pretend to be the public opinion of Los Angeles' people. It is high time that the police of this city were put to some worth-while task. How about the traffic situation? How about the auto thefts? How about the bank holdups? How about the criminals running amuck? There's plenty in this city for Mayor Cryer, Chief Vollmer, and other public officials to attend to along police lines before they presume to walk in on a private dinner-dance being held by the motion picture directors or any other cinema folk and dictate as to their hours and form of entertainment, and to add insult to injury, allow other entertainments of similar nature to continue unmolested. The antagonizers have given as their excuse the fact they are trying to rid Los Angeles of "night life." To be frank about it this is a tremendous joke. Try to find the "night life." Furthermore, if they are desirous of shutting down some public dance hall because mother's daughter is running out all the time, let them follow the right course in doing so, and not assume the audacity of stating that the Directors' Ball is akin to a public dance hall. There will be no bums at a ten-dollar-a-head entertainment. In the meantime that "permit" . . . "permit" Los Angeles to be rid of auto thieves . . . "permit" Los Angeles to be relieved of the terrible traffic congestion . . . "permit" Los Angeles to be cleaned of depraved criminals dashing around loose here, a menace to life and property . . . "permit" bank holdups to cease . . . and last, but not least by a long shot, "permit" the members of the Motion Picture Directors' Association and their friends to enjoy their little friendly congregations in peace. It only comes but once a year. If not we will carry the issue to the finish, to the one deciding factor, if necessary . . . the polls. At the coming elections the voice of filmdom will be heard in protest, and it will be a clarion cry for the preservation of free speech, justice and liberty that is as much due film folk as others. Los Angeles MUST HAVE government "of the people, by the people, for the people," and we of Hollywood are included in that "people." What's your answer? I Will you . . . "permit?"