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

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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 11 the moral standards of the people. My opponent's charge that I am a dreamer longing for the impossible, and his rejection of my claim that censorship such as I would advocate would increase the confidence in and the patronage of Motion Picture shows, is not ratified by the results of censorship in Cleveland. Mr. R. O. Bartholomew, the head of the censor board there, says that the attendance has increased since the censorship law there went into operation. Motion Pictures, with proper reasonable official censorship, do not teach young children the morals of the underworld, nor give them the impression that what they thus see is real life. Censored Motion Pictures are an uplifting educational influence, and, at the same time, more amusing and interesting. Instead of scenes of degeneration, they show scenes of growth. For a growing flower is more interesting to normal people than a cesspool. REBUTTAL FOR THE NEGATIVE By PRESIDENT DYER Your argument, Canon Chase, regarding the mad dog, is against you. The policeman kills the dog after the madness develops. To be consistent, you should provide for censoring all dogs, examine into their pedigree, decide if it is probable that they will develop rabies, and if so then destroy them. You advocate killing the dog, not because he is surely mad, but because you consider him mad or have reason to believe he may become mad. In your last article, like the honest man you are, you tell us, m a few words, wThy you believe in censorship. The "ignorance of the police, juries and judges concerning the moral and psychological effect of bad pictures upon children," the fact that censors (as distinguished from ordinary mortals) possess "trained minds" on the subject of morals, and "the very general non-enforcement of law," are the real reasons why you advc cate such an extraordinary and unprecedented departure from general practice. My dear Canon, if I were as hopeless of our institutions as you are, if I had so little confidence in the uprightness and honor of our people, I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you. But I believe in law, believe in our institutions. And even if I were pessimistic enough to think that "police, judges and juries" were incapable of dealing rightly with this subject, I would try to remedy the evil along the lines of lawful procedure, and not by advocating — apparently as a despairing alternative to anarchy — a return to the inquisition of the Middle Ages. And so, my good friend — I may call you such, may I not ? — 1 leave the subject to the judgment of our readers, expressing to you the sentiments of my most distinguished consideration. REBUTTAL FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE By CANON CHASE Mr. Dyer calls my method of eliminating immoral pictures a RussoTurkish, mediaeval way. In my first article, I pointed out that the growth of the license system of protecting the public from impure food and various evils thru the work of inspectors is one of the most modern ways of effec tive governmental action. So long as there is a legal appeal from any improper decisions, there can be no ground for calling it a tyrannical, arbitrary or anarchistic or mediaeval method. My opponent thinks me lacking in faith in our American institutions be