MORALS AND PUBLICITY

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 128, 27 November 1923, Page 6

MORALS AND PUBLICITY

We are in hearty accord with the desire of the Presbyterian General Assembly that New Zealand should possess a> newspaper Press free from any suggestion of uncleanness. But we cannot agree that the Assembly is justified in calling for repressive legislation for the attainment of this. aim ; or that such legislation is the best method of promoting the desired aim. The resolution .of the Assembly last week expressed the hope; that legislation would be introduced "to restrain newspapers from reporting unclean details in divorce and criminal cases." We have previously pointed out'that there is already such power. A Judge of the Supreme Court may forbid the publication of evidence, and even if no such order is made a newspaper which chooses to wallow in filthy details does so at the risk of a prosecution for the publication of obscene matter. The General Assembly does not state how it proposes that further restrictions should be imposed without closing the Courts wholly and shutting out the wholesome light of publicity. We have the-' authority of the King's Proctor of England that publicity is desirable, and even essential, in divorce proceedings. The King's Proctor has an intimate knowledge of ; this subject. The Assembly's knowledge of the question in all its aspects may be measured from one paragraph in the reportVpf its Public Questions Committee.

The Press of the Dominion (states the report) has in',the past merited on the whole the epithet of "clean," but recently' its columns have been soiled by filthy details of divorce cases—a grievous ortence to decent-minded adults and a source of abominable contamination to the young. The evil came t 3 a head in connection with a peculiarly obnoxious trial m the Supreme Court i,, Wellington, -when your committee voiced a vigorous protest.

The peculiarly obnoxious trial to which the committee refers was obnoxious in its very essence. No amount of censorship would have made it pleasant reading. When this case was cited by a deputation to the Attorney-General as proof of the need for censorship, Sir Francis Bell rightly pointed out that some distasteful details, to the publication of which objection was made; were evidence of importance to one person on trial. Newspapers have a duty to be fair to persons upon trial, and unfairness may arise from the omission of relevant facts'. The report does not give examples of "the filthy details of divorce cases" which are alleged to have been published, so we are unable to answer' this charge in detail. But the,tone of the report suggests that the committee, in its anxiety to hush up the mention of things evil, has not considered fully the course it advocates. The rea} evil lies deeper down, and it is little use fussing about to sweep away the few signs that come "to the surface.