Divorce and Publicity.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18671, 21 April 1926, Page 8

Divorce and Publicity.

During the war it became necessary to impose very sharp restrictions upon the freedom of the Press, and traces of this censorship remain, not only in the shape of actual restrictions —certainly neither important nor oppressive—but also in the shape of a readiness, on the part of Legislatures and officials, to say what newspapers may not publish. Since a free Press is as necessary for the safeguarding of social liberty as ever it was, every proposal to curtail the Press's freedom must be carefully watched. In Great Britain the value of a free Press is still better understood than it is in most countries, and any restrictive legislation adopted by Britain is accordingly of special interest and importance.- A second reading has been given to a Bill to regulate the reporting of cases beard in the Divorce

Courts. Most English newspapers report at length the unpleasant and unsavoury details of such cases, and do 60 became a section —a large section, probably—of the public enjoys wallowing in such nasty stuff. Many of the papers, of course, would be glad if they could refrain from doing this, but to refrain would merely be to pend readers to those newspapers without scruples or feelings. The Bill proposes that the newspapers may not publish more than the names and addresses of the parties, a concise statement of the grounds, submission on points of law, the Judge's summing up, the verdict, and the Judge's comment. The only ground upon which this proposal can be objected to is that it may be " the thi. end of the " wedge," the establishment of the principle that the contents of-a newspaper, or at least the range of its freedom, may be fixed by law. At present, we believe, there is no restriction upon the British newspapers' freedom to print what they choose. They are left entirely free to expose themselves to the risk of the punishment provided by the law for offences against the laws relating to public morals and public and private rights. But while this is as it should be, it is very unlikely that a restriction which touches no freedom but the freedom to supply garbage to garbagelovers can become a precedent for future interference with the salutary rights of the Press. The proposal is one which New Zealand newspapers would not oppose, because they are almost all careful to avoid printing such unsavoury matter .j the British Bill is aimed at. They would, we think, much prefer a definite direction in a statute to the existing method, which leaves the duty of censorship to the Courts. The newspapers dislike all kinds of censorship except that which they appl, to themselves, but if a censorship mus. be established, they would prefer the clear and unvarying command of a statute to the authority of any individual official.