The Motion Picture Story Magazine (Feb-Jul 1914)

74 THE MOTION PICTURE 8T0KI MAGAZINE \ derers, burglan Bud immoralists. We believe thai the tendency of these pictures would be to make you and your children defy the laws and become law-breakers. We believe thai they will make you an<l them cruel and bloodthirsty. We believe thai they will have a tendency to make you and your children commit suicide. Now, entertaining these beliefs, and with the earnesl desire to protecl yOU and your children so that We may elevate the mora] tone of the entire community and reduce crime and vice, we reserve the right to look over these pictures before you them, and if there are any pictures that in our opinion yon and your children OUghl not to be allowed to see. then we shall condemn them and not permil them to be shown anywhere." What do American citizens, inheriting the greal const itutional rights of religious freedom. and freedom of speech and of the press, think of such B proposition as this.' Here is a body of persons claiming the superior righl to do the thinking for the multitude on the subjeel of what they shall Or shall not see. They objeel to a picture] <>ut ii g never to be seen by the common man. Should not the common man have the righl of deciding for himself whether he approves 1 Censors are Only men. with all the frailties and weaknesses ami prejudices of their fellow mm. Will they never make mistakes.' KYiiieinher that recent English censorship condemned the "Mikado," and that one Liberal minded censor refused to license any drama in which tin word "heav n " or "angel " appeared. The fact inns) imt be k»st aighl of that these opinions of the all powerful or are not t<» he confined to a single body, but, if the principle is adopt* '. in time will he extended to City, and township of the " It is not properly within the power of any man or body of men to tell us or our children what we shall or shall not see." country. Furthermore, we most not forget that no censor or body of censors '-an take away from the Stat. its police power, so that even if a picture is approved by all the censoi the country, the owner of a theater still mighl be arrested and pi cuted for exhibiting it. because <»f its alleged violation of some law. The advocates <»f censorship must not delude themselves into the belief that their approval of a picture is Lr<»inLr to grant to it the slightest immunity from attack by the police authorities. Now, as opposed to the above views, the opponents of Censorship maintain the following position: "We believe that it is not within the power of any man or body of men to tell us or our children what we shall or shall not see. We reserve that right to ourselves. We refuse i<> allow any one to lay down to us what shall he OUT code of morals or t. We insist that we .shall decide those questions ourselves. If our children go to the theaters where improper pictures are shown, that is our lookout, and not the lookout of the State. If an improper or grossly immoral or licentious film be exhibited by any chance, the proprietor o\' the theater and the producers <>f the film should he punished wit h the greatest severity. We say the situation is precisely the same as when a newspaper prints a libel. We cannot prevent the paper from printing the Libel, bu1 we can hold the paper Btrictly accountable for doing so. We cannot prevent a man from Uttering scandal, hut he can be arrested and prosecuted for doing bo. We believe the American people are the proper cei pic tures, We do not believe thai theater can exist at all. unless it rep < s. nt a respectable public sentiment. A theater showing improper films * ill not be patronized excepl by those pci-sons who always are seeking evil, and in that event the theater ■ighl Veil m i