Exhibitors Herald (Jul-Sep 1922)

July 1, 1922 EXHIBITORS HERALD 23 New Constitution in Missouri May Provide for Free Screen ~ Hi ~ =\ % ~ — i Us =1 Hi % III Constitutional provision for the immunity of motion pictures from censorship is the one solution of this annoying problem. Members of the r? VK-Wotion ^* Missouri constitutional convention who propose to place motion pictures in the same categoiy as the press are furthering the principles upon which the American government was founded. Censorship is not a democratic institution. Monarchs have used it as a cudgel for whipping their subjects into suppression. Until constitutional provision is made for the freedom of motion pictures, reformers, the monarchs of America, will strive to obtain complete oppression of the citizens of this country through enactment of censorship legislation. * * * Missouri advocates of the freedom of motion pictures may be a few years in advance of the time when the public can be aroused from its apathetic state to demand constitutional protection from autocratic encroachment upon their inalienable rights. The public's attitude rests to a great degree upon the exhibitor. He can mold public opinion if he will, or he can remain passive and feed the fires of the reform forces. Missouri exhibitors have the solution to the censorship problem within their reach. Judicial use of their screens in crystallizing public sentiment in favor of the proposed constitutional provision will free them forever of the reform menace. Once this precedent is set, the road will be cleared for like action in other states and eventually action by the federal government. * * * Screen messages, treating of the censorship question in a logical and instructive manner, are published in the PUBLIC RIGHTS LEAGUE department of the HERALD each week. In addition, a series of twelve slides, several of them dealing with censorship, are being supplied gratis to exhibitors. Use of this cooperative service at this time by Missouri exhibitors will enhance their campaign, and may be the means of giving to Missouri the honor of being the first state in the Union to make constitutional provision for the freedom of motion pictures. Proposal Is Certain of Adoption, Say Members Amended Section Would Put Motion Picture in Same Category with the Press JEFFERSON CITY, MO., June 20.— The initial step in one of the greatest strides in the history of the motion picture in Missouri was taken Thursday when a proposal, which would place the screen on the same plane as the newspaper, as far as censorship is concerned, was introduced at the Constitutional Convention in session here. The proposal, introduced by A. A. Speer, would broadly widen the scope of the "freedom of the press" section of the present Missouri constitution, providing that every person shall be free to say, write or publish, either by written or printed word, or by pictures in motion, or otherwise, on any subject whatsoever, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty. Proposal Outwits Reform Forces The proposal, which, in the opinion of leading Missouri politicians, will be adopted by the convention which is framing a new constitution for Missouri, is the culmination of a long standing fight on the part of the reformers, to obtain the passage of a censorship in the "Show Me" state. It was at the constitutional convention that the reformer mustered together his strength, hoping vainly to deal a death blow to the screen. But the best bet was overlooked. The most influential delegates at the convention, delegates who have refrained from the ballyhoo system of announcing their policies, are staunch supporters of the freedom of the screen. Among the most prominent of these delegates is Charles Morris, editor and publisher of the "St. Joseph Gazette," a daily metropolitan newspaper, who recently set forth in a lengthy editorial that the public alone should be the censor. State Official Supports Move Then, too, to make the battle more hopeless for the reformer, Attorney General Jess Barrett recently proclaimed himself as firmly opposed to any form of state censorship, involving the creating of a needless department that merely would be a financial burden on the taxpayers of the state, and stating that the public alone would discriminate between the good and bad productions. With such promising conditions looming on the horizon for the Missouri exhibitors, the reformer's day of judgment appears near at hand.