that he had contacted no one. This was obvious.

The question is, why does he keep showing ONE Magazine, calling it obscene, then saying he does not oppose those publications cleared by the courts? Is he actually ignorant of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has cleared ONE? Or is he deliberately hiding this fact from his viewers and hoping that guilt by association will lead the viewer to think that ONE is obscene since he holds it up with so-called obscene publications without pointing out that it is not one of them. This comes close to being slander. From San Diego we learn that another member of this "Committee for Decent Literature" has been indicted for molesting two young girls. It figures.

BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT THEY'LL SAY!

Since some publications are still plugging away at the Vassal treason case, perhaps we should note an article by John Crosby. He says: "The British press, some of it anyway, has come off very badly in the Vassal case [See the Editorial, ONE Magazine, January, 1963]

During the uproar, the press here wallowed in speculations, most of which have proved to be totally untrue... One of the things. that has come out of the Vassall case is the shocked discovery by the press at just how thoroughly disliked and distrusted it is by the British public. Several of the newspapers here have been deluged with letters which are overwhelmingly anti-press . . . it does seem to me that a newspaper's circulation figures are not at all an accurate reflection of the paper's real popularity or the extent to which it is trusted. It is quite possible to buy a paper and hate it and disbelieve every word it it." Crosby ends the article with these thought-provok-

ing words: "On one side of the Atlantic, the press is a nuisance to the authorities; on the other side they're managed by them. And on both sides of the Atlantic, the press seems to be creating almost more news than it's covering."

A case in point is the Santa Barbara News Press which gives excess space to numerous and repetitious reports of children molesting each other and men exposing themselves in public, thus giving outsiders the impression that this is the most important news in Santa Barbara and that nothing else is happening, good or bad. But most newspapers are quility of "managing" the news. To refer again to the Vassall case, let's take a look to see if the papers have given as much publicity to the traitors who were heterosexual as they have the homosexual ones. What of the case of the Russian Col. Oleg V. Penkovsky, sentenced to death, and the British co-spy Greville Maynard Wynne, sentenced to prison, for giving and receiving Russian secrets. Did the press put this on the front page in black headlines and accompany it with editorials calling for the firing of everyone connected with the hiring of this business man and Colonel and questioning the patriotism of the families, etc.? Did the press call for all businessmen and Colonels to be fired and for no heterosexuals to be hired since they obviously might become traitors?

And when you consider the viciousness with which homosexuals are persecuted in the military service based on the official reasoning that they might become traitors, how do you account for the lack of interest in the heterosexual traitors? What about the U. S. Capt. Alfred Svenson of the 3d Armored Div., who deserted to Germany, a known rake. And Sgt.

15