We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
THE GREAT DEBATE
SHALL THE PLAYS BE CENSORED?
Does Censorship assure better plays, or is it beset with clangers? — Promise or Menace?
Affirmative Negative
REV. WILLIAM SHEAFE CHASE, D.D. FRANK L. DYER
Rector of Christ Church, Bedford Ave., Brooklyn Presiden of General Film Company, (Inc.)
EDITORIAL NOTE: This debate was begun in the February issue, continued in the March issue, and is concluded in the present number. In presenting the greal question of censorship to the public in Ibis masterful way. each side being represented by an authority of national renown, we feel that we have done ;i public service. For the first time, a public record has been made of all the arguments for and against censorship, and those who have followed the debate from the beginning can feel, after they have read the following articles, that they are now qualified to pass judgment on this all-important question. It is not for us to say which side has presented the more convincing arguments— we leave that for the public; but we believe that we are voicing the sentiments of countless thousands when we extend to Canon Chase and to President Dyer the grateful thanks of the Motion Picture public1 for their valuable services. Those who have not read the preceding articles should do so before reading the following concluding arguments, a'tho it is, of course, not necessary. We will mail the back numbers to any address on receipt of thirty cents, or fifteen cents for a singlenumber. Next month (May issue) we shall hear from the National Board of Censorship on the matter. Mr. John Collier, its secretary, having consented to review the arguments of Canon Chase and President Dyer, and to set forth the views of that body on its efficiency and sufficiency.
THIRD ARTICLE FOR THE NEGATIVE
By PRESIDENT LYER
Out of the smoke and confusion, what is the accomplishment? It is not so difficult to state as may be thought, because on both sides simple propositions have been often reiterated and clothed in superfluous trappings. I am sure that Canon Chase will agree that my object, in a broad sense, is the same as his. We both want to keep the standard of morals as high as possible. Moral miasma is the evil we are both fighting. He has a dream that the work can go beyond this — that it may extend to the elimination of pictures that he considers merely undesirable, as contrary to his ideas of taste or propriety, or as unnecessarily cruel or sordid or unduly suggestive of evil. But I confidently hope, upon careful
FRANK I.. DYE1
71
reflection, that he will see that this is a mere chimera. No reform can be effective unless it commands public support — unless, if submitted to a vote, it would be approved by a majority of the voters. Matters of taste and propriety are the subject of too much dissension — too much difference of opinion — too m u c h bickering a n d doubt — to be placidly submitted to the immutable judgment of a censor or censorship board. As a practical matter, we can go no further than subjects which an overwhelming majority would condemn, whether they appear in Motion Pictures or books or on the stage or in photographs or other pictorial representations. Those subjects on the border