What shocked the censors! (1933)

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.

while the second is to reveal by means of case studies how motion pictures promote the growth of a critical sense, increase powers of discrimination, and strengthen ethical stability. The primary concern of persons involved in studies such as the above relates to the welfare of children. In this connection it seems entirely clear that a genuinely constructive program would lead, not toward censorship, but rather toward improved planning and supervision for children's entertainment. If parents, who assume responsibility for the child's education, recreation, and his choice of companions, would carry their sense of responsibility one step further, — namely to include a program of supplying and directing appropriate entertainment for their children — this problem would tend to disappear. They might even give themselves assurances by insisting upon the enforcement of current laws which, in many states, forbid the admission of minors to motion picture theatres if unaccompanied by adults. And finally, parental ignorance of the character of motion pictures can scarcely be set forth as a reasonable excuse since many voluntary agencies already exist for the express purpose of evaluating and publishing judgments on current films. If censorship were removed, the practice of announcing endorsements of films by such advisory agencies would become far more common and effective. Debates of this sort, whether conducted as scientific researches, or as mere polemics may go on forever — and probably will. But they miss the essential point which may be stated thus: Our sense of right and wrong derives from the kind of society in which we live; censorship can never improve our moral standards since it represents an external, fractional, and negative ittack upon mere items in the total equation. Censorship is, as Francis Bacon long ago insisted in connection with sedition, "the remedy (which) is worse than the disease." And this, says the National Board of Review is precisely its attitude — "formed out of experience many years long". Why is the Cure Worse than the Disease? A partial answer to this query has already been suggested in the above section. Censorship emphasizes only that which is considered to be "bad" ; it deals only with fractions of the total situation; it represents a negative attack upon a problem which can only be effectively met by positive measures. But, there is still another sense in which censorship becomes a disease, and it is at this point that all persons who genuinely desire a better society should be concerned. We live in a society in which change on the levels of technology, science, and industry are rapid, dynamic, and effective. But, alas, we live also in a society in which change on the levels of political, social, economic, and human values are correspondingly slow, lethargic, and ineffective. Those who have for long been in power and have dominated our cultural pattern have already exercised far too much censorship. Social change can only arrive when the channels of criticism are all left open, when freedom is something 11