The Motion Picture Story Magazine (Feb-Jul 1914)

THE GREAT DEBATE: SHALL THE PLAYS BE CENSORED? Does Censorship assure better plays, or is it beset with dangers? — Promise or Menace? Affirmative REV. WILLIAM SHEAFE CHASE, D.D. Re-tor of Christ Church, Bedford Ave., Brooklyn Negative FRANK L. DYER President of General Film Company, (Inc.) EDITORIAL NOTE : There is, perhaps, no question before the public so important and perplexing as the censorship question. In every country, in every State in the Union, and in almost every city and hamlet, the subject is pressing for solution. Debating societies everywhere have discussed it, churches and civic societies have demanded it, newspapers and magazines have expressed opinions for and against it, the police authorities have been urged to adopt it, while the film manufacturers, exhibitors and the amusement world are apparently divided on the subject. What is the solution? Is the present National Board of Censors inadequate? Shall there be official censorship? Shall the police, or the church, or the State or city authorities be given the right to censor all plays? Or shall all censorship be abolished, and shall the public themselves be the sole judges of what plays shall be exhibited and of what shall not? Is it right that a few persons shall determine what you and I shall have for our amusements, and if so, who are those persons and whence their right? And, on the other hand, shall the theaters be permitted to exhibit indecent plays, if they wish, to corrupt the morals of the public? And icill they, in the absence of censorship? These are some of the many questions that must be answered, and we have secured the services of two of the ablest and most representative men in America to discuss the subject — Canon Chase and President Dyer. Canon Chase has long been before the public as an advocate of various civic improvements and moral uprightness, and has had wide experience. Mr. Dyer was for years the attorney for and president of the allied Thomas A. Edison interests. Perhaps nothing more need be said of his ability and experience, but when it is noted that he is an author of recognized merit and is now president of the General Film Company, it is apparent that he is well equipped to conduct his side of this debate. Thus we are able to introduce to our readers two experts and authorities on the subject of censorship, and we may confidently expect them to give us the "last word" pro and con. In this issue Canon Chase opens the debate with many convincing arguments in favor of a more complete and rigid censorship, and Mr. Dyer sets forth his side of the controversy in a manner that must cause even those wTho differ with him to pause and reconsider. In the March number of this magazine Canon Chase will reply to Mr. Dyer, adding still other arguments to fortify him in his position, and in the same number Mr. Dyer will reply to Canon Chase and fire another broadside from his battery of arguments. Then there will come rebuttals and sur-rebuttals, and, when the debaters have done, we are confident that the whole subject of censorship will have been covered in a masterly manner. FIRST ARTICLE FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE By CANON CHASE This debate upon the sability of censorship of . aon Pictures is begun with confidence in the uprightness of my opponent's motives, with a wish to benefit the business interests involved, and with a very strong desire to secure freedom for the children of our land to grow to maturity in a normally uplifting, moral atmosphere. "I shall never go there again; it was horrible," said the boy, who had come from a Motion Picture show all of a tremble. "What was horrible?" said Canon Rawnsley, of England, to the horrified lad. "I saw a man cut his throat," wras the reply of the boy, whose liberty had been infringed by an unscrupulous Motion Picture manufacturer, or by one w7ho was ignorant or careless of the rights of childhood. "There was no harm in it at all," said an exhibitor, in England, who had gone to Canon Rawnsley to get him to protect him from the unreasonable criticism of the proprietor of the building where he was giving his show. ' ' It was the finest natural his 67