QUESTION TODAY IS OF REGULATION NOT "CENSORSHIP"

The Reverend Root, who is secretary of the Massachusetts Federation of Churches, has taken a leading part in arousing interest in the moving picture censorship bill which is up for referendum tomorrow.

The most plausible argument of the opponents of the Act regarding Motion Pictures submitted to the voters of Massachusetts, Tuesday, is the word "censorship". Why does that word at once awaken a feeling of protest? The fact is probably due to one man and one book. If John Milton, in his Areopagitica, addressed to the parliament of England, did not bring to bear every possible argument against the censorship of books, it would be difficult to find another.

But the question is whether the principle of free speech applies to the law passed by the General Court of Massachusetts in 1921. Milton admits that there are certain things essentially evil which "no law can permit if it intends not to unlaw itself". Our Act says that the Commissioner of Public Safety "shall approve such films or parts thereof as are not obscene, indecent, immoral, inhuman, or such as tend to debase or corrupt morals or incite to crime." Can any law permit the things herein prohibited without unlawing itself? In an appeal from an Ohio case it was contended that such regulation infringed the principle of free, speech; but the Supreme Court of the United States said: "Are Moving Pictures within the principle as it is contended that they are?

The judicial sense supporting the commonsense of the country is against contention." The Court, therefore, placed Motion Pictures in the same class as amusements, such as theatres, circuses, etc., which is always subject to regulation before exhibition, and is not in any manner governed by the same laws as affect the press and free speech. (The United States Supreme Court in Mutual Film vs. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U. S., on page 243.) To Americans the decision of the Supreme Court is an end of all controversy. The fear of the press that regulation of Motion Pictures is an entering wedge is, therefore, groundless.

To Prevent Moral Injury

It should be noted, also, that this decision sweeps away the objection that the present laws, punishing indecencies after exhibition, are sufficient. The only reason for punishing obscene or crime-provoking exhibitions is to prevent moral injury to the spectators. Mr. Will Hays, himself, said to a deputation from Massachusetts: "It would be better that the whole film industry should be sunk in the depths of the sea than that the delicate mechanism of the child's mind should be defiled." But, if the exhibition is once given, the harm is done. Legal procedure is costly of time and money, and in practical experience, procedure against immoral shows is found simply to advertise and spread the evil. Therefore experience has established the principle that these things must be regulated before exhibition.

A Need of Cleaning Up

But, have there been such evils in Motion Pictures? It is sufficient to quote an editorial in the Boston Herald, in defense of the Industry and appealing for vote against the law. Yet the Editor said: "The Motion-Picture magnates descended to such depths of indecency and obscenity that decent people were aroused.... We believe that they deserved severe punishment." A police officer, railing at the "old maids" that were asking the legislature to pass such a law, added: "But one thing I should like to see stopped,--Motion Pictures are making all the boys in my neighborhood little thugs." The very appointment, by the industry, of Mr. Will H. Hays to clean it up, is an admission, both, that there is need of cleaning up and that regulation is possible. We believe him to be sincere. We are not so sure about the sincerity of the industry. Were it not for the movement to secure state regulation, would such a dictator have any power? would he be appointed at all?

But, Mr. Hays says be does not want "political censorship"; We have proved that the Massachusetts law is not "censorship". Is it political? Regulation of films is entrusted to the Commissioner of Public Safety, acting according to the law and regulations which must be approved by the Governor and Council, subject to appeal to the Supreme Court. The meaning of the terms "indecent, obscene," etc. will therefore, quickly be determined by the courts. This is in the line of Massachusetts' proud boast, "A government not of men, but of laws!" Moreover, so long as we have state regulation, the people can control it. If it is too lax, or if it is too rigid, they have their own remedy in their own hands. What is the alternative? A dictator, appointed by the industry, outside of our state, and responsible only to his employers! In 1664 the General Court replied to Charles 11: "For 30 years this people has enjoyed the government within themselves as their undoubted right". These 30 years have become 300. Will the people of Massachusetts November 7 vote that they no longer desire government within themselves?

Moreover, our law cannot possibly be used to carry out the political prejudices of the Commissioner, for he is expressly directed to approve all films that are not immoral, etc. If he attempted to do anything else, the Court would quickly rebuke his usurpation of power. Our law is better safeguarded at this point than in other states.

Will the Massachusetts law make films less entertaining? Not unless immorality and obscenity or the details of crime are necessary to give amusement. Only depraved minds could claim this.

Such regulation of films is not new. It has been tested for a decade or more in other states. In Ohio both candidates for Governor have come out in most emphatic approval of the present law.

Thus it will be seen that the opponents of the law misrepresent its meaning and effect. This is only the beginning of their misrepresentations. In their pamphlet "The Truth About The Motion Picture Situation" they quote Secretary of State Hughes as saying: "Censorship of films is un-American and intolerable". November 3 the State Federation of Churches received a telegram from Secretary Hughes saying that the statement has been published without his approval or knowledge. A pamphlet of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America was republished in garbled form. The Federal Council at once disclaimed any responsibility for it; and Mr. Hays had to order the remainder of the edition destroyed.

Opposition From Industry Itself

While some individuals are doubtless sincerely opposing the law, the organized opposition is clearly due to the industry itself. It is said to have brought into Massachusetts the biggest war chest ever brought into any Commonwealth for any purpose. Why? Its motive is obviously the largest possible profit. On the other hand, the 420 organizations, state and local, supporting the law before the legislature and before the people, include all the altruistic organizations and the churches. The men and women who are speaking and writing for it are without pay and sacrificing time and money. Whether mistaken or not, their purpose is clearly to seek the interests of the Commonwealth. The Protestant churches have acted through their Federation and denominational bodies. Cardinal O'Connell, last January, appointed Mongr. Ambrose F. Roche to represent him in this campaign. The very contrast between the advocates and opponents of the law is impressive.

Some of the cartoons used by the opponents are boomerangs. One of them represents the Censor as a weeping, hideous creature, defiled in political mire. Either this has no application to the question, or it attempts to describe the persons who will examine our films,--the Commissioner, Governor, and Council and Courts. If it has any effect, it will bring the fundamental institutions of government into popular contempt. Could any anarchist strike a more nasty blow at the foundations of society?