The Evils of Censorship

(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be with-held.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

Both you and Mr. Lynd are right as far as you go, but neither of you seem to realize the full importance and scope of the problem which confronts you. It is not a question of whether this specific play is art, or even whether it is "nothing but a dirty book full of commonplace smut." It is rather a question which strikes at the ground work of our entire social system, namely, can censorship still be imposed upon us?

No law can be enforced unless all people agree on it, and then there is no need for the law. At present we actually ignore imposed morality. Why not discard it? That can only harm the sensibilities of its few sincere advocates.

I suggest the removal of all censorship where nothing appears against the will of these involved, or harms any other physically. This will give rise to a sort of natural selection of the fittest in literature and art.

Perhaps Mr. O'Casey's play is crude there will no longer be such labels as "smutty" or "immoral." As things stand it cannot be judged fairly if at all. Banning "Dead Eye Dick" did no good, but the writing of better stories on the same topic hastened his demise. Banning eventually defeats its own end, by giving a book great publicity, and by organizing its own opposition. J.A. Christenson, Jr. '35.