Morality and the Law

"Is it possible to tighten the laws against obscenity and lewdness yet keep them reasonable, enforceable and constitutional?"

This is the question posed in the May 26th editorial of the 'San Francisco Examiner". And a timely one it is to the people of California inasmuch as hearings before a legislative committee were held during May with an eye toward tightening of said laws.

Appearing before the committee were ministers, a rabbi, a priest, a librarian, a bo okseller, public prosecutors and police. And in this group, as all through society, there was "sharp yet earnest di sagreement" on the question.

As pointed out in the "Examiner" editorial, "Each of us holds a general concept of what is obscene or lewd in written and pictorial material, yet it is extremely unlikely that any one of us can agree on all points with anyone else."

The "Examiner" went on to say, "The literary morality of every period is molded primarily by the home, the church, the school. It cannot be legislated. When a bluenose law is passed it either is made a dead letter by widespread public defiance or is found by the courts to violate freedom of the press, meaning your right to read and judge for your self.

"The police always seem the last to comprehend that fact. They were before this legislative committee, as they have been before others, urging more precise (meaning more rigid) definitions of obscenity and lewdness. They complained the language of the existing law is too broad, and judicial interpretations of the law too varied.

"That is the way it should be. Judges interpret the law according to the needs of their times. Too, judges, per-

6