more beneficial law enforcement.

The second quote to consider is from Los Angeles Postmaster Otto K. Oleson, who says, according to the Times. "I'd like to see national laws enacted that cover the corner stand. We need some good old-fashioned censorship to stop this-but we can't get the judges to go along with it." And how fortunate we are to have those judges.

Here is perhaps the most direct statement for censorship that has been uttered by a public official since the last Salem witch trial. "Good [?] old-fashioned censorship" is what Mr. Oleson wants. A vast majority of the citizens of this country seem to disagree with him about the goodness of old-fashioned (or any other kind of) censorship, as witness the progress that has been made away from it in the past 300 years, slow though it may be. Mr. Oleson clearly reveals that he, for one, does not agree with progress, with the strides that have been made by the world of sociologists, psychologists and law-makers toward a more enlightened, educated, individually-free society. It is shocking to hear such statements from men in public positions of influence, for Mr. Oleson apparently adheres to the philosophy of the few who shall dictate to the many.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Pitchess is quoted by the Times as saying, "It [pornography] has an untold harmful effect on the morals of our community. I can't see any justification for a book like Lolita to be sold." Neither can I, but apparently there are hundreds of thousands who can, and far be it from me to tell them what they may or may not read.

Literary merit is a virtue generally lacking in the paperback novels being attacked, but then, I hardly think the Sheriff is any better qualified to judge literature than you or I. And we might not care for some of the trash he reads, but we will defend his

one

right to read it. The supposed "harmful effect on morals" indeed has been told, by every proponent of censorship since time began. Told it is, but proven it is not. Find me one competent psychologist who will verify that "harmful effects" upon public morals can be attributed to reading habits— just find one. It will be a long search.

Rather, it is the untold facts of life that have the most harmful effects on the morals of the community. It is the ignorance, the emotional repression, the prejudice that are fostered (perhaps unwittingly) by those who howl for greater censorship and punishment for sexual activities outside their understanding that is today wreaking havoc on the public morals.

The Times goes on to quote a Judge Redwine. "We have had convictions reversed on appeal as a matter of law. The higher courts have held that the material did not appeal to prurient interest, applying the contemporary community standards, despite what the jury thought. Figure that one out."

It is not at all difficult to figure it out, Judge Redwine. In the first place, our jury system is a make-shift arrangement at best. To date it is the best and most democratic means we have devised to protect the innocent and punish the guilty, but with a little honest thought, it should be clear that a jury can be no better than the people of which it is composed. And it is composed of people remarkably uneducated for such a task. Those whose presence on the jury might be the most valuable, professional men, educators, lawyers, business executives, social scientists, are usually excused from jury duty, thereby leaving the job to housewives, plumbers, cab drivers and, very prominently, to retired people, whose ideas of contemporary community standards are forty years behind the community in which they live. Is it then any wonder that the higher courts regard such