The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News The Echo and The Sun. TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1932. FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 121, 24 May 1932, Page 6

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News The Echo and The Sun.

TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1932. FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

For the cause that lacks assistanOß, For the wrong that needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

As troubles crowd upon the State, freedom of speech tends to bo restricted, and what is taken away may not be easily regained. The Great War furnished the supreme example of this truth. For the safely of the State stringent curtailment of utterance and publication of fact and opinion was imposed, and human nature being what it is, there was abuse of a necessity. It may be doubted, indeed, whether the whole world is so free to express itself as it was before 1014. llic aiea of tho world in which a rigid censorship of thought is exercised remains large. Precedents firmly established have produced offspring, and in relatively free countries tho fingers of both Governments and civilians itch from time to time to tako up the weapon that was so efficacious in the war. The application of principles to the varied and changing conditions of life is often most difficult. That the value of frocdom of speech and writing is priceless should need no exposition. If it is not, then British peoples have fought many a fight purposelessly. There is, however, no such thing as absolute freedom in any direction. No man is free to slander or libel, to incite to crime or sedition, or to wound feelings by wanton blasphemy. Nor is it strictly true to say, as Dr. Anschutz did in his letter on Saturday, that tho right to liberty of speech "extends legally to all statements which are true." In criminal, as distinct from civil libel, the truth of the statement complained of is not in itself a sufficient answer to tho charge. It must also bo shown that publication was for the public benefit. The difference is important, especially so in New Zealand just now, for proceedings for criminal libel are not taken unless in the opinion of the authorities the alleged libel might cause a breach of the peace. That is to say, it is considered that the interests of order may transcend the interests of truth, just as in the war tho safety of the State was held to have the superior claim. A wide variety of local illustration may be cited from recent happenings. When the governing body of a Southern school censored the headmistress for giving a public address on tho Douglas Credit schomo most people thought the action foolish, and other teachers promptly came to her help. On the other hand, a teacher is not, or should not be, permittod to identify himself or herself publicly with any political party. At the Farmers' Conference last week there were compluints about the Customs censorship of books. No one seems to know exactly how the censorship works. There is, or was, an advisory committee, but docs it function? In the circumstanccs, there is bound to be suspicion, and one or two examples that have been cited indicate that tho censorship has not always been wisely exercised. The Government, however, is perfectly well entitled to ban all books advocating violeneo in any form, just as it is its duty to shut the mouth of a man who incites to burglary or arson. It happens that most of this impossible and questionable literature is connected with Russia. That country is the scene of one of the greatest economic experiments in history, which other countries cannot afford to ignore, but unfortunately it is impossiblo to differentiate between economic Russia and the Russian Government; and that Government cannot be separated (at least neither the Labour nor tho Coalition Government in Britain was able to separate it) from the Third International, which has declared ruthless war upon all civilisations that do not subscribe to the Class War. To promote this object it sends its emissaries all over the world.

The amount of freedom to be allowed staffs of universities has been raised by tho Government's communication to tho Auckland College Council and Sir George Fowlds' memorandum. If there is any institution that should bo a guardian of free speech it is a university. In pre-war Germany professional thought was moulded to reactionary political thought and pan-German ambition, and in Italy to-day every professor must take an oath to subscribe to the Fascist ideal in politics. Any serious attempt to bring Now Zoaland nearer to such a state of affairs would naturally cause alarm, and it is perhaps unfortunate that the Government communicated with our College Council in this matter, for no Government is fit to be a censor of opinion, and Now Zealand Ministries are not always as liberal as they might be. It must also be remembered that it is from the Government that the University 'Colleges draw most of their revenue, so that a reactionary or a timid Government could put pressure upon them to suppress certain opinions. But when all this has been said —and it should be said governing bodies of University Colleges have a responsibility in this matter, and there lies upon University staffs tho duty to be extremely careful in their expression of opinion, and to remember firstly that what is lawful is not always expedient; secondly, that a man may be judged, rightly or wrongly, not only by what he says, but by the circumstances in which the utterance is made; thirdly, that it is not always possible to dissociate in the public mind the servant from the institution; and, fourthly, that what may be wise in normal may be unwise in abnormal times. If Sir George Fowlds' memorandum appears to some to contain contradictions, that is a measure of the difficulty of applying conflicting principles to varying conditions. No one who has followed Sir George's public life would suggest that he has any liking for suppression of opinion. He has been confronted with a divided duty, and has done his best to jai§et it.