CENSORSHIP OF BOOKS

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 15, 18 January 1936, Page 8

CENSORSHIP OF BOOKS

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Doubtless many besides myself were amazed and deeply perturbed by the statement made by the Hon. W. Nash, reported in Thursday's- "Post,' to the effect that he considers there is no need in New Zealand for a censorship of books. On the contrary, such censorship is vitally important, quite as necessary as the censorship of films, and for precisely the same reason. Removal of this supervision will instantly flood our libraries with the foul stream that pollutes the reading public in Britain and America. It is 'earnestly to be hoped that Parliament will not endorse the Minister's views.—l am, etc., L. D. AUSTIN. [This letter was referred to the Hon. Walter Nash, who stated: "There is nothing in what I said that would interfere in the slightest degree with the Police Department in any steps they take to prevent the distribution of pornographic or indecent literature."] (To the Editor.) Sir,—Mr. Nash's speech on censorship, as reported in "The Post," was surely unique of its kind for a Minister of the Crown in this country. Such matters are usually taken as much fori granted by these exalted personages as free railway passes and the Police Force, and it is most refreshing to find such t. keen and masterly criticism emanating from Ministerial quarters. Mr. Nash's devastating critique of the principles of censorship was fully in line with the work of the best and most liberal minds of the world of letters. But there was one remark that could bear more elucidation. Mr. Nash agrees that censorship is impermissible; but, he goes on to say, "We still have the Law."

If this means that the statute book should protect us from libel, it is surely reasonable, though today the law of libel stands in, sad need of amendment. It is well-known that it is based on the principle "The greater the truth, the greater the libel." But if it means that the law is to take the place of the Grundyism: of a publisher or official censorship, it is surely a negligible improvement. Let Mr. Nash remember Bumble's profound observation, and repent. Even as it stands now the law contravenes all the liberal canons Mr. Nash was defending so eloquently, and I should have been more reassured by his peroration if he had descended for a few moments to make it a little more concrete, and assumed us that in future men will not be given sentences for publishing Karl Marx, nor books on "Girth Control" be impounded because their invoices had been badly written.—l am, etc.,

ERIC COOK.