VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

Taranaki Daily News, 16 January 1935, Page 9

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

VIEWS ON CURRENT TOPICS CENSORSHIP OF READING MATTER. PROFESSOR SEWELL CRITICISED. (To the Editor.) Sir,—The views expressed by Professor W. A. Sewell in regard to censorship of books are likely to provoke considerable anxiety among those who look for something more than academic training from our universities. The Professor is at New Plymouth to address teachers engaged in training the future citizens of the Dominion. It would be interesting to know whether they would support his view that there should be no safeguards in' regard to the; books available for the boys and girls Of New Zealand. If if is admitted that ? tastes change and standards of what is decent or indecent are difficult to, set up, there are still limits beyond which no i writer should be allowed to go, at least • in books intended for general consumption. Dirt is dirt, however skilfully it may be used to illustrate a story or to expound an idea, and it is not a good ingredient in the mental food of anyone, young or old. Censorship may not be perfect, but those who condemn it should show how else they would prevent the “liberty” of which Professor Sewell speaks becoming license to commercialise indecent writing without any thought of the consequences beyond the monetary gain to the perpetrator. People with the training Professor Sewell has undergone can perhaps handle such books with impunity. So can a doctor attend to patients suffering from infectious disease, but I have yet to learn that the immunity from danger conferred by superior knowledge makes protection of the community by arbitrary action either stupid or old-fashioned. And the same applies to health of the mind.—l am, etc., Z PLAIN MAN. Stratford, January 15. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Professor Sewell’s remarks in your issue of to-day on the vexed question of censorship are interesting. On certain points most of us will agree with him, but not on all. On this subject he is without doubt an extremist. He desires to make a clean sweep of all kinds and all descriptions of censorship. He states that the result would be beneficial, but most of us would require a great deal more than his bare assurance. Take, for instance, the Bolshevik propaganda that the Russian Government is so assiduously distributing throughout the world. Apparently the professor would place no restrictions even on this. Surely he cannot be serious in advocating the free entry into this fair country of literature inciting a certain class to overthrow by force the present governing powers, and setting forth methods by which the crowds can be worked up into the necessary frenzy to commit violence, We know that the disturbances in Auckland nearly two years ago were organised and worked up on the lines laid down by the Russian experts. Our own laws regarding the censorship of seditious literature have worked well during the last fifteen years, -and it would be foolish to make any alteration. Why not leave well alone?—l am, etc. COMMONSENSE. New Plymouth, January 15. (To the Editor.) Sir,—Professor Sewell’s dissertations upon the theatre and any subject pertaining to English language and literature are worth hearing, but it appears to me that the opinions he expressed to your reporter are illogical and unsound. Freedom of speech is one thing, but complete freedom from censorship is entirely another. I believe in no restriction on constructive thought, but would Professor Sewell, whose learning I hope extends to a realisation of what war would mean to the world, allow free rein in thought, deed and expression to those who do not care whether they spread a belief in the inevitability of war abroad in the world. No man in his senses would advocate free utterance of destructive thought and expect anything but sense from people to whom a sane world and a happy one is the paramount consideration—l am, etc., QUIZZICAL. New Plymouth, January 15.