Exhibitors Herald (Jul-Sep 1922)

18 EXHIBITORS HERALD July 22, 1922 Text of Martin J. Quigley's Talk On Free Screen Proposal Following is the complete text of the address of Martin J. Q'tigley, publisher and editor of the HERALD, delivered before the Missouri Constitutional Convention which is considering a proposal granting the screen immunity from censorship : Gentlemen of the Bill of Rights Committee of the Constitutional Convention of Missouri: My name is Martin J. Quigley. My residence is Chicago, 111. My business is editor of Exhibitors Herald, a motion picture trade journal which is published in Chicago and has approximately 300 subscribers in the State of Missouri who are owners and operators of motion picture theatres. 1 am availing myself of this opportunity of coming before your committee on a matter in which I am peculiarly and most sincerely interested, and one which I regard as of very immediate and important concern to the people of Missouri, and one which I believe eventually will be of vast concern to the entire public of America. Is Courageous Effort I address myself, gentlemen, to your Proposal No. 135 which in reality considers nothing more than an up-to-date interpretation of the existing constitutional provision safeguarding, within the State of Missouri, that institution which has always been held as necessary, inalienable and priceless by the American people — the freedom of expression. This proposition which you gentlemen are kindly permitting me to discuss with you is on the one hand a simple, common-sense procedure, and on the other hand it represents a bold, courageous and pioneering effort. It is a simple, common-sense procedure because it does nothing more than bring your free speech constitutional provision up-to-date; it merely bridges the gap of time since the early day when your original constitution was drawn and makes your new constitution, in this respect, a living, breathing thing, taking into consideration the methods of thought transmission which exist today, and not only those which existed in that earlier day. A Thing of Necessity This proposal represents a bold, courageous and pioneering effort for no reasons other than those which thrilled with apprehension and expectancy the signers of the American Declaration of Independence because these men had no fear that they were not doing the right thing — as you men and women need have no fear that you will not be doing the right thing in approving this proposal — but those men knew they were not taking the easiest course, they knew they were doing a thing that was revolutionary, but necessary, something that for the progress of humanity in the Western world had to come one day but certainly they must must have felt not a little awed and rebellious that the emergency in which they had to take action was thrust upon them and did not fall to the lot of some succeeding generation. Therefore, let us dismiss any possible timidity that may exist in facing this issue; let us determine that the only considerations that shall sway us are those concerned with the right, equity, fairness and utility of this proposal. Cites Constitutional Provisions As you are aware, the constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the several states all provide in a bold, direct and sweeping manner for the freedom, against all possible aggressions, of expression, verbal and printed. It is the obvious intent of the framers of these basic laws that every citizen of America should hold inviolate the right of expressing his thoughts freely and without interference, being held responsible, of course, for the abuse of that right. Mind you, gentlemen, there were no restrictions. The citizen was safeguarded in his right of free expression in every manner conceivable 'to the people who then lived on earth. The citizen was specifically privileged to "say, write or publish" and these operations covered every then known method of expression. Since that earlier day, however, mankind has been given a great, new method of thought transmission — the motion picture. Wants Public Protected Your proposal simply provides that this new method of thought transmission, the only one that has come into existence since the original constitutions were drawn, be included to share in the accepted principle of freedom of expression, subject only to punishment for abuse of this privilege. We ask you to approve this proposal, not because of any possible benefit that may accrue to the motion picture industry; not because the motion picture industry may seem to some to desire to escape proper regulation; not because anyone might want you to sacrifice any proper power and means to keep pictures in Missouri clean and wholesome— you have your laws and your jails for anyone who transgresses the code of morals or public policy, just as you now have them for the control of the seditious speaker and the distributor of obscene printed matter — but we do ask your approval solely for the protection of the public of Missouri. When the free press provisions were written into our constitutions, the action was not taken as a protective aid for struggling newspapers, it was not done to promote commercially the business enterprises represented by the press of the nation, it was done solely for the protection and advancement of the public in order that the public might enjoy the benefit of free institutions which can only exist where freedom of expression is an established fact. Failure Would Be Sacrifice If you decline to include this new and third method of thought transmission in your free speech and free press amendment, you are sacrificing the only possible means of protecting your public against perils that are identical with those which would exist if the press was not free, if your candidate for public office, your speaker on matters of public policy, or your minister of the gospel was not privileged to express his thoughts freely and without hindrance. In the absence of a constitutional safeguard, a politically controlled censorship of motion pictures can spring up at any time, just as the same type of pre-publication censorship could come into existence at any time to muzzle and pervert the press, if its freedom was not guaranteed under the constitution. I can see fully as great a menace to the public in controlled pictures as in a controlled press. The motion picture news weekly, for instance, is as much a purveyor of news as the newspaper itself. There is an instance of recent record where, in a neighboring state, a board of political censors cut from a news weekly the picture of a candidate connected with the opposing party. Imagine what would be the wrath of the public if a similar instance was enacted with reference to a newspaper. Why Approval Is Asked We urge you to approve this proposal— Because public interest demands that motion pictures, like the press, be kept free from interference and sinister control. Because this amendment is doing what would have been done at the time your original constitution was drafted if this third method of expression was in existence. Hence, it is merely a revision called for by a recent invention or development. Because it is entirely within the spirit of the fundamental American principle of free speech, free press and free pulpit. Because it is the fair and equitable thing to do, there being no grounds for holding this particular method of expression constantly subject to the peril of interference and sinister control. And, lastly, because of the recognition and prestige it will bring to the great state of Missouri in being the leader in this important step in which every other commonwealth in the land must eventually follow. Gentlemen, I thank you.