The Timaru Herald TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1937 HINTS OF RESTRICTIONS ON THE PRESS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20892, 23 November 1937, Page 6

The Timaru Herald TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1937 HINTS OF RESTRICTIONS ON THE PRESS.

Because the Press of New Zealand enjoys an Empirewide reputation for its breadth of outlook, its sobriety of tone and its accuracy in the presentation of news and opinion in all categories—a reputation recorded in the high praise the newspapers of New Zealand have been given by distinguished visitors to these shores —it is not necessary to speak in defejice of the Press in reply to the reckless charges of “distortion’ and “misrepresentation.” But the Government, on its part, if current reports have any basis of accuracy, is so carried away in its resentment of all forms of criticism that it is preparing to curtail the traditional privileges of the Press, in so far as discussion on political topics or the expression of political opinion is concerned. Manifestly the Government is ignoring the repercussions that are likely to follow any attack on the freedom to express views on political topics; and views that may be. critical of the Gwernment of the day. It is interesting to note that the suggestion is that a Bill has already been dratted which, if it becomes law, will compel the public disclosure of authorship of all political reports, articles and correspondence on political subjects, appearing in the columns of the newspapers. The first reaction to such a proposal is to reflect on the difficulty of determining where the field of politics begins and where it ends! The plain fact that if the suggested restrictions become law the tights of the individual citizen, no less than the newspaper newsgatherer and commentator will be challenged. The Government on its part seems to have formed the fantastic idea that restrictions imposed on the newspapers will curb their activities. It ought to realise, however, that anonymity encourages the use of the Press where such use touches one of its most vital functions. It enables candid criticism of public men and public affairs and it affords protection against victimisation, and against reaction that may be due to intolerance, and against the embarrassment of unsought notoriety. By the use of the legislative machine it would appear that the Government intends to make an attack on one of the priceless possessions of the people. It is doubtful if the Government Party would unanimously approve of the enforcement of such sweeping restrictions on the freedom of thought and expression that ought to belong to all sections of the community. It is inconceivable that the Government Party is unanimously in favour of the suggested restrictions; indeed it can be said that one of the leading members of Cabinet, is certainly opposed to any such restrictions, if words mean anything. For instance Mr Fraser, speaking as acting Prime Minister, some months ago said:

The Government has never at any time considered for one moment anything so stupid as to use his (Mr Bodkins) own words, muzzling the Press, by which, I suppose, he means a peace-time censorship. The very Idea is ridiculous. . . . The Labour Party has always fought for freedom of speech and freedom of expression and those precious privileges of democracy are safer In the Government’s hands than in those of our political opponents.

What has Mr Fraser to say to-day in face of the persistent reports that the Government is actually contemplating restrictions that will strike a blow at freedom of speech and freedom of expression. If however, the Jeffersonian doctrine is still accepted that “no Government ought to be without censors and where the Press is free none ever will,” the people and Parliament ought to look carefully before it leaps, because of the obvious pitfalls in the path of auy Government that reveals in its attack on the Press an obvious desire to rule with a despotic hand.