vidual, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to pruriant interests.

The difficulty for the censors is that "obscenity" is not defined so that there is always a clear-cut distinction between that which is obscene and that which is not. An objective definition would act as a yardstick, so that one could declare a book obscene every time certain four-letter words are used for instance. But as the Judges of the Supreme Court know, what is obscene to one person is not obscene to another, or further, what is considered D.H. obscene in one community is not so in another. "Obscenity," as Lawrence pointed out, "is what is currently considered lascivious, sinful etc., by the majority, and since our attitudes toward sex are rapidly undergoing change, what is obscene one decade may be quite acceptable the next. By using a nationally distributed list, censors are in a sense using an objective or absolute standard. These lists are probably selected according to some vague urbending definition of obscenity which seems naturally cor rect to the compilers. But their own social and cultural background is merely reflected in the definition. While the censors pretend to be following the legal and relative definition of obscenity in pointing out the effects of reading "obscene" literature, they are in actuality using another definition--one which they use in an absolute manner. The censors find around them the "effects" -immorality and crime, and point to the "causes"books which meet their rigid definition of obscenity. Thus the courts seem to be using a relative definition of obscenity while censors are for the most part using an abolute one.

For many years the "isolated passage" theory of censorship was in operation. If a book contained a single sentence which was considered obscene, the whole book was declared obscene. This trend was reversed in the nowfamous "Ulysses Case" in 1933. After Ulysses was declared not obscene, books were considered obscene only if 'on the whole' they tended to arouse prurient interests. Psychologist S.E. Asch has conducted studies which dem onstrate that the "pracuce of isolating 'offensive language' from its context does not correspond to the actual run of experience of readers." (The Freedom to Read, by Richard McKeon, Robert K. Merton and Walter Gellhor, published by R.R. Bowker Co., New York. p. 73.)

Having discussed some of the methods of censorship employed to ferret out obscene literature, let us consider the assumptions which censors use in their efforts to prevent circulation of "undesirable" books. Most censors use the argument that anything must be suppressed which threatens the existing form of government, or the social order, or any desirable social institution. It is quite obvious to the m nds of the censorsthat homosexuality constitutes a direct threat to quite a few of the established social institutions. For homosexuality is considered a gross immorality and as such is completely mattachine REVIEW

8

contrary to acceptable social practice, and anyone committing homosexual acts is also breaking a law of the land.

Therefore one of the focal points in the argument for censorship in that obscenity will deprave and corrupt minds open to immoral influences. This argument was used as late as May 19, 1958 in the U.S. House of Representatives, where a bill was up to tighten controls on mailing of pornography and increase maximum penalties for violators. Stated one of the bill's defenders, "Few things contribute more to moral degeneration than the lewd and obscene literature and other filth which flows freely through our mails directly to our young people or by way of magazine stands and comer drugstores." (Congresman Keating (R), New York; in the Congressional Record for May 19,1958.) This bill was passed in the House.

If it can be shown that there is no reliable empirical evidence for the correlation between reading so-called immoral literature and immorality, or fur ther, if it can be shown that no direct correlation exists, then the chief argument for censorship becomes invalid.

Arguments Against The Censors

Freedom of speech and the press and the right to assemble are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. However, freedom of the press does not extend to pomography, which is what the censors say they are dealing with. The censors have to be shown, ume after time, that what they are calling obscene is not considered obscene by most people at all.

Each person in this country is free to choose which books he wishes not to read. He may read no books at all, or only books dealing with God, motherhood or country. But censors wish to impose their stands of reading on everyone who reads. In cleaning up newsstands, drugstores, and libraries, the censors maintain that they are protecting the young. Yet they are denying adults the right to read literature written for adults in the first place. They would allow everyone to read only what they think a 12 year old should read. For they invariably use the argument: "would you allow your 12 year old daughter to read this?”

ahat every

In their eagerness to clean up smut, the vigilantes are missing one instantly recognizes as pomographic: literature and pictures of this type never find their way to newsstands or other public selling points. It is quite obvious that what the censors call 'pornographic' would never be questioned by many responsible people as being obscene. Therefore while their fruitless efforts are being made to wipe out "smut", the real traffic in pornographic material continues its metry, subterranean existence.

As the authors of The Freedom to Read point out, the history of past eff-` forts at censorship prove that no censorship is effective for any lentth of time. Knowledge that something is forbidden only enhances its attraction, as the

9