Letters

Under no circumstances do the Editors forward letters from readers to other persons nor do they answer correspondence making such requests.

PORNOGRAPHY IS... Dear Sir:

Dale Mallory made some rather rash statements about censorship and pornography (May, 1961). I should like to straighten him out on some of his facts and theories. In the tradition of such writers he has attempted to equate the innocuous (but still offensive) newsstand magazine with the poisonous (and hard core) pornography bombarding children. through the mails...

It is the parent's right and concern to determine his child's activities. The parent has a responsibility to train his child according to moral standards established by tradition or religion, and no one has a right to violate that parent's right, privilege and duty.

The trouble with most pro-obscenity propagandists is that they do not want to grant freedom to anyone else and most certainly not to parents. Many of the propagandists would have us believe that there is no appreciable relationship between the continual rise of juvenile sex crimes and the increase of pornography being sold to the junior high school student.

Apparently they refuse to accept facts and figures released periodically by the ever-reliable FBI and from the Senate Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and the House Subcommittee on Postal Operations.

The battle cry that he and others like him take up is that of absolute freedom. I cannot conceive of any right-thinking person claiming that the parent does not have the right to take any action he deems necessary and that remains within the framework of law to preserve his right to instruct his offspring in a moral framework.

I would not think it should be imperative to define the words obscenity and pornography over and over again, but I see that it is. "Porno" is from the Greek, denoting the harlot and extra-marital relationships. The Greeks themselves extended the word to include all sexual relationships, while "graphy" means depiction, either in word or in picture.

So the meaning of the word is quite obvious. I don't think that too much confusion exists on this level. But there is considerable difference of opinion when it comes to offensive matter that cannot be labelled as obscene.

This might be a bitter pill for Mr. Mallory to take, but art has many restrictions and limits. The artist is not free to go beyond these limits without destroying the values and meanings of his art. Whenever you argue for freedom of expression you must remember that freedom always carries with it responsibilities that cannot be shrugged off. The boundaries beyond which no man can go are the boundaries of goodness, beauty and truth. In terms of art the boundary is beauty.

Unlimited freedom to include picturization of that which is ugly would be so contradictory that any discussion would be impossible. What you would be asking for would be simply anarchy or lawlessness.

Dear Editors:

Mr. S. Newark, N. J.

I do want to say that the Magazine has come a long way. I can remember those early days. It is a wonderful thing to note the spirit of courage and daring in the things that you print these days. I do not agree with all of them (and I know that you don't either) but you have made ONE a true symbol of democracy and freedom by your willingness to publish every point of view, and often without editorial comment, which is a compliment to the intelligence of your audience.

Dear Friends:

Dale Mallory Garden Grove, Calif.

Perhaps others have already reported this: the mailing envelope of my last issue of DER KREIS was stamped "Supposed to contain matter prohibited importation per: part 262 postal manual." Presumably it had not been opened, just "supposed to contain" prohibited

matter.

29