Nov, 12.
Quite a lively skirmish has developed over the censorship of films. One party has called for some kind of corporate expression of opinion to strengthen authority's hand in removing re-[proach from the cinema theatre.
The other party is highly indignant at such a proposal which is regarded as a menace to the liberty of the citizen and an outcome of Pecksniffian prudery. The public asked, now, to accuse the censors of gross laxity und, row, to consider the mere existence of censors as a terrible affront to those highly-cultivated and conside rate folk who dictate the work jof studios, Perhaps, without presuming to adjudicate between the respective parties, it may be well to indulge in a few general reflec~ tions on the subject. Censorship is an operation which is not limited to the small body charged with the technical duty of censoring films. The producer, the film magnate and the others concerned in the production of films are all censors in their way. The box office provides them with one criterion. Their sense of probabilities and of market conditions gives them others. And it is absurd to contend that even in the everyday relationships between men and men, complete "liberty of speech" is observed. There are things that aren't done"; there are things that aren't said." A newspaper, in the ordinary course of going to press, is constantly employing the instrument of censorship, although under the more convenient name of editorial discretion. This _instru~ ment is governed by material considerations of space, of finance, of good taste, and of legal sanctions. It is, nevertheless, a form of cersorship. Therefore it can hardly be pretended that, in the exercise of some inhibitory influence over the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.