People or puppets?; Who is to censor what?

Should obscene or pornographic literature be allowed. Is some form of censorship always necessary. Are we people or puppets. This series people or puppets is produce by the Union Theological Seminary in New York City in cooperation with the National Association of educational broadcasters under a grant from the educational television and radio center on today's program. Who is to censor what. You will hear the views and voices of theologians John Bennett and his novelist Geoffrey Wagner and critic Martin Dorking. These are the man who will analyze some of the concepts created by our modern mass media and compare them with our traditional moral religious value. Here is the commentator for people or puppets. The president of the Union Theological

Seminary in New York Dr. Henry Pitney even you know are often heated discussions of censorship. We usually forget that censorship may already be the law of the land. In fact we not only believe in making the manufacture and distribution of certain distasteful and objectionable material as censor above but also punishable by fine and imprisonment. This was made very clear recently when our Supreme Court had to act on pictures of little comic books and other literature that were so pornographic we could not begin to describe them on the air. Listen to these excerpts from The New York Times story of June 25th 1957. The United States Supreme Court ruled today that obscenity was not protected by constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and the press. However the court was careful to make it clear that sex and obscenity are not synonymous

material dealing with sex becomes obscene the Supreme Court said only when it appeals to prurient interests. Justice William Jay Brennan Jr. who wrote the majority opinion said sex a great and mysterious force in human life has indisputably been a subject of absorbing interest to mankind through the ages. He's one of the vital problems of human interest and public concern. But literature that incites to impure sexual thoughts or is related to anti-social conduct cannot be afforded the protection of the First Amendment. Justice Brennan's opinion decided two cases. The first was the conviction of an individual for mailing obscene indecent and filthy literature. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment and fined $5000. The second was a conviction for lewdly keeping for sale obscene and indecent books and with writing composing and publishing an obscene advertisement of them.

This man was put on probation for two years on condition that he serve 60 days in jail and pay a fine of $500. This recent Supreme Court decision raises several questions. Can we be critical of the Catholic Legion of Decency when the law of our land States the necessity of centering and punishing the distributors of literature that relates to anti-social conduct. Secondly Bowdler Faulkner Hemingway Dostoevsky and others are guilty of them. Or is the real question. Who is to determine what is obscene. Isn't one man's obscenity another man's art or even religion. When this censorship issue came up in Minnesota several years ago novelist Frederick Mann Fred said that if the proposed obscenity censorship laws were passed he would immediately demand that all religious bookstores be padlock and all ministers arrested

since they were distributing the Bible which Mr. Mann Fred viewed as overflowing with violence and obscenity. The major issue here was stated by Chief Justice Earl Warren who concurred in the Supreme Court decision you've just heard but felt it necessary to add the language used by Justice Brennan is so broad that it may eventually be applied to the arts and sciences and freedom of communication. Can this be prevented. If so how. It was one of the major questions. Our producer Philip Galba asked of our guest authorities. Martin asked Bork and lectures on the philosophies of education at the Teachers College at Columbia University. Mr. Dorgan is the film critic for progressive magazine and a freelance writer for many publications. I certain already know this is really just as naturalists as

anything. It's really a spice to goodness if you like. Just his last day you might say is the spice of a real of a true piety. Nor do you know us without laughter as a matter of fact is dangerous. The point I'm making really is that mischief is not pathology and that naughtiness is not felt in other words a great many things. If we assume a purely moral or moralistic standard a great many things that have values in themselves or let's say that people have a right to see if they like would not be permitted. The inadequacy of statutory censorship for me as pointed out by something else. This is the terrible problem that the entire society today is bathed in a rightist system and bathed in such an eroticism that really can't be hand handled by censorship at

all. We are censoring poor. We are censoring what we consider to be. Immoral aspects of the theatre. We are censoring what we consider to be immoral aspects of literature of the movies of the very cultural media which absolutely must deal with the problems of morality in order to raise taste in order to elevate tastes that people can make judgments and the judgment I mean is to show our people as well as train people we mustn't ask the theater to be an educational instrument direct it becomes propaganda. But at least to to to provide people with the opportunity so that they can judge for themselves that filth is not excellent. Now the point the point about the surrounding culture is that actually as far as erotica is concerned an ordinary or ordinary newspaper or especially an issue or any one of the slick magazines

with the girdle ads the brazier ads the ads for everything and television of course now all of these things as a matter of course are more revealing. And I would say more dangerously tasteless more dangerously vulgar because they are not presented as sensual and yet they are in a hidden way and not even so hidden that it is subliminal if you like. It's it's hidden because the intentions are different. The advertisers deliberately use sexual symbols they deliberately use erotic symbols. And yet these are not censored. They are not required to be censored. And I will say this they are impossible to be censored because any principle that could be established that would censor these advertising principles would censor everything in sight. It would be even more radical I think than a censorship applied to

literature. The point is that the the censorship statutory censorship applied to the arts. Is something to me which is abhorrent because it inevitably leads to our lack of frankness a lack of profundity. And really it leads to a weakening of the very media by which we can elevate taste. To. Make possible. When I mentioned before the judgment that film is not excellent and this is really what we are after. Ultimately both the moralist and the the aesthetic critic are. Dr. John Coleman Bennett is a professor of Christian theology and dean of the faculty at the Union Theological Seminary. He is chairman of the Executive Board of Christian action.

How would you yourself go about determining which is something was pointed graphic or obscene. Well I'm not sure that I can answer that very well. I realize that people who are quite honest about it differ even in regard to the productions of well-known writers. I can think of for example quite a debate on my own theological colleagues about the work of Tennessee Williams Some might almost regard it as pornographic and I think we have to consider both the deeper spirit and motive of a production and also the kind of people who are likely to see it or or read it or hear it. Just to do things that might throw a light on this one is that we should not allow any particular religious group. Through high pressure to bring

about censorship for the whole community in line with its own special religious convictions or its own convictions about what is moral. And then secondly we should take some account as to the media man who is likely to encounter the whatever it is we're concerned about. Dr. Melfi who is an ordained Congregational minister professor of ecumenical studies and director of the program of advanced religious studies at the Union Theological Seminary. After his slip of fate a local or national court asked you to serve on a type of censorship judgment board would you do so. I think I would not do so. But I would have to make it as clear as I possibly could that the reason I could not do so would be that I do not feel that I am qualified to judge

what is harmful. And what is not harmful morally dollars that admit that you're probably more qualified than just any housewife who volunteers to serve on a committee for the Legion of Decency. Yes and in that sense I think my answer is to some extent and escape and probably if the situation actually arose I would have to search my conscience and I might quite possibly come up with the answer that I would accept and serve. But I'm quite certain I would explore very carefully the way in which this board were set up. The statement of the law. Which constituted it and I would have to be quite certain that its membership was being chosen with the very definite intention of rendering objective and mature

judgment rather than serving as the instrument of a kind of personalized judgment. Jeffrey Wagner is a graduate of Oxford. Lectures and literature at City College of New York and Columbia University. Is the author of six novels under study is a parade of pleasure. And Wyndham Lewis the artist as the enemy. Mr. Wagner of some kind of censorship necessary. This is a very vexed question and I think a terribly important one in our culture. And indeed First of all it's a tribute to our culture that it is an important one and that we aren't all Thora Tarion and we are allowed to discuss this because censorship of a strict kind is usually to my mind rather a feature of an authoritarian culture in England of course. If you publish an obscene book you're guilty of publishing an obscene libel and I think those words categorize very much what I'm trying to say. You commit an obscene libel on your fellow citizens you libel your fellow citizens by

this act. Now the question you asked Mr. Gabby's is some form of censorship necessary I would say is the censorship still necessary or is it one of those directives that are fading out. Do we need to enforce it as strongly as we used to. Now the Lord Chamberlain isn't appointed by the queen and has been for centuries. And his duty is to. Prevent the public from being libeled by obscenity so called the Lord Chamberlain's chief qualification for judging literature at the moment is that he was an officer in her sorrows for most of his life and on the whole most people for instance Beckett's play endgame. I found a party has just been banned in England and as you know plays by Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller were both banned last year and there is no court of appeal for this year as it would be in this country now in England because that is the

situation. There is going through the house at the moment and obscene publications built in an attempt to repeal existing legislation and make a statutory reform of the law. You cannot in this new law in England be prosecuted at common law unless it can be shown that you did so with an attempt with intent to corrupt your fellow citizens. In a second section they were reckless as to the consequences. Now in this new law your intention and act must concur in the crime and in 1868 in the famous Hicklin case in England which is still operative. It was made irrelevant whether you had good intentions or bad was irrelevant if the thing was proof you'd had it as regards the book and of course in the case reversed that in this country he said the obvious if Joyce's intention was was not to stimulate you were tall. Now secondly the other points about this bill are that the jury must consider the

factors new factors in the thing and I think this is absolutely operative in answering your question as to who is to determine what is obscene. Now in England up till quite recently you had cases you know of manuals on birth control being censored. Now if this new law takes effect you can introduce medical and scientific evidence on your behalf to show that it's valuable in another field. Now here we come to the whole crux of the matter because if scientific and medical evidence can be used on your behalf why cannot expert literary evidence be abused on your behalf as not being allowed in England until recently and indeed in 1934 in the. Case of Ulysses it was allowed and Judge hand said there and I'd like to quote this statement because it seems to me to be absolutely the answer. Judge hands said the established reputation of the work in the estimation of approved critics of the book as Martin and the verdict of the past it if it is ancient are persuasive pieces of evidence. In other words you're allowed

to by this statement introduce an expert in your particular field a literary expert to state whether this is literature or pornography. He used to draw the dividing line. That's a very important point. Under this new law in England the police can still destroy works on obtaining a destruction order from the magistrate but the magistrate must make his finding in court in front of a jury. And the operative test is for the jury to decide what distinguishes pornography from the serious work. How can we prevent sucker ship from going too far Dr minute. It is important we create some counter pressures that would prevent a sort of monopolistic type of censorship by any group no matter how powerful it may be. Suppose a Legion of

Decency or some other body of that kind should declare a particular play indecent. It may be that it would be desirable for some religious authorities and another church to show the merit of the of the production. I think that you have to have people who enforce or interpret the law. Who have a real understanding of the issues and who who do have a strong sense of the competing values that are at stake in this matter. There's just no substitute for this kind of understanding of the particular cases involved. That would be fair to conclude that there's really a great deal of difference between censorship within an actively democratic society and one that does has no chances for counter pressures that this would be the key.

Yes I think so. In general the. Freedom of any society must be maintained by what I call the counter pressure so that no no group has a as a monopoly in these matters. What kinds of things can be done to prevent the extension of any form of censorship into many other areas Dr. Hislop. Well I think the first thing is for persons who are quite rightly concerned about the kind of influences that are brought to bear on their own children. That is for parents to attempt insofar as they are able to take the first responsibility themselves for helping their children to develop the right

standards of judgment not by protecting themselves from the world that they are really not able to function in it but by giving them the kind of moral environment and standards on which to make moral judgments so that they can live in a world where there is freedom. And at the same time be able to maintain their own standards. I'm suggesting that the answer to censorship that is to protection of people by law is to bring the element of judgment into the most immediate community where standards are really form into the home. And I think a good deal of our concern about censorship would be less acute if we were more concerned and had more faith in the

ability of the home to provide the proper standards of judgment. Mr. Dworkin how can we prevent censorship from going too far. What we're really talking about is limitations that are placed upon the very agencies whereby a maturity can be created and a maturity that is maturity is a condition of health. Maturity is not. A state of antisepsis we know for example if I can carry this analogy further. We are surrounded constantly by germs. Some of which are very dangerous and very ill and we carry the bacteria of tuberculosis in us all the time. Whether we become infected or not has to do with the state of the health of our organism. In other words by analogy we are constantly surrounded by erotica in our civilisation and I was civilisation

particularly but to be more than fair to be simply historical. To be truthful in every civilisation the people are always surrounded by erotica. Now without maturity and I mean here without awareness and without critical judgment to know that filth is not excellence without critical judgment we are quite likely to be infected. The point I'm making in other words is that the censorship of the arts doesn't work because it's the rest of the society that is full of erotica. The real origins of these forces cannot be reached by censorship. They are all around us they are too deeply ingrained and the only way that this can be really reached and dealt with. Is through what seemed to be in direct methods of elevation of taste. I call for the censorship of criticism. I say that let people stand up and say This stinks. Say it loudly and prove it and

constantly say this and not be backed up into positions where because they are civil libertarians they are defending the right of filth to be seen and the right of filth to be heard. This is where we are constantly forced because nobody stands up and says that there is a place for clean sex. Let good naughty films be made good ones. And believe me there won't be too many dirty films around after a while but confused the whole issue by saying that anything discussing sex must be censored. And after a while you have nothing. We can't stop the erotica. We can't stop the violence in our society except by teaching training. Or if you like educating in the broadest sense persuading individuals to know what is happening to them and to know how to choose. And now for a commentary on today's program.

Here is the Roosevelt professor of systematic theology and the president of Union Theological Seminary Dr. Henry Pitney even we will agree I believe that this discussion has wrestled with some of the most baffling as well as most difficult and important issues in our common life. I'm not certain that we shall agree equally that the discussion has thrown clear and decisive laid upon what should be done about these issues. Perhaps we do well to start with two basic recognitions recognitions of facts about the human nature which we all share. The first fact is within human nature there is an inbuilt bad toward the crude and the crass the cruel and the vulgar. Even the obscene. This is part of what Christianity calls original sin. Fondness for obscenity is not the only expression of original sin a tendency toward

cruelty sadism and masochism. Gossip are other illustrations but it is strongest and most dangerous. Just where we should expect in the area of the most powerful drive is within human nature. That is sex. Moreover there will always be persons within society who will try to capitalize on these impulses by exploiting them and pandering to them especially for monetary gain. Another form of original sin. The second fact is human beings whatever their age are not necessarily out of us. That is mature. In varying degrees they still think and act like children. Of course the ideal is personal maturity moral adult hood where the individual is his own censor and any

sound program must aim at increasing such majority partly by allowing it to be put to the test of temptation. Just here society comes in. What responsibility has it to safeguard it younger or weaker members against their own lower impulses. Especially against their exploitation for gain. It is fairly clear isn't it that no one has the right to pervert others particularly the young whether young in age or in majority just for his own satisfaction. Either of his brilliant impulses or of his greed. That's a question of the motives of the writer or purveyor of obscene literature for instance. But motives are difficult to determine. And in any event society can hardly stop there. It must be concerned not only with the

intention of the originator but also with the effect upon the recipient. There's where the limits of defensible legislation become elusive. Even though the discussion may not have succeeded in defining these limits to our satisfaction it may have been worthwhile if it has focused our attention on to determinate considerations the actual character of human nature especially in the light of what the ology cause original sin and the degree of responsibility of the community for the well-being of its members. It is in terms of the right relation of these two considerations that the puzzling concrete issues of censorship must be resolved. That was Dr. Henry couldn't even do his and the president of the Union Theological Seminary and the commentator for this series people or puppets. Next week at this same time people or puppets will bring you an authoritative

analysis and dramatic presentation on cooperative and rugged individualism. Who's conforming now. The guest authorities discussing this topic will be critic Martin Bork and theologians John Bennett and Ralph Hislop and the doctor. People or puppets is written moderated and directed by Philip Gelb for the Union Theological Seminary in New York City executive producer for the seminary professor John W. Buckman music by Alfred Brooks. ANNOUNCER Lyman this series is made possible by a grant from the Educational Television and Radio Center for distribution by the National Association of educational broadcasters. Join us again next week for an exciting analysis of cooperative and rugged individualism. Who is conforming now on people. For. This is the end of a radio network.