WAR CENSORSHIPS The outbreak of the World War in 1914 necessitated censor ships from a purely military point of view in all belligerent coun tries, to deal with (1) postal communications; (2) telegrams and wireless communications; (3) printed publications. With (3) we have already dealt above.
In peace time censorship of letters and cables is comparatively uncommon, though even in such a country as England the Home Office may empower the postmaster general to seize and open specified correspondence while it is in his hands. In war time, however, postal censorships were almost universal. In most of the armies field censorships were established to deal with the correspondence of the combatant forces. The censoring was performed in the area of military operations by regimental officers, or if necessary at the base by staff officers specially ap pointed for the purpose. In Great Britain only such letters arriving from the area of military operations as appeared to have escaped the eyes of the field censors were submitted by the post office for scrutiny to the censors in London.
This part of the censorship's activities was really a part of the contre-espionnage, a service designed to defeat the enemy's at tempts to extract useful information from behind the lines. Such services were general in all belligerent countries, and necessitated a strict examination of any suspicious documents which might convey, by the use of cipher, code, sympathetic ink or any other device, a message to the enemy. In the British, French and German postal censorships special branches were organized to deal with these problems, and as a result many enemy agents were ap prehended and enemy channels of communication closed. In Great Britain arrangements were made by which communications in tended for enemy persons might be placed in open envelopes and enclosed in covers addressed to a neutral country. All such letters were submitted to examination. Mails for neutral countries con tiguous to the enemy were censored from the first, and as the area involved by the War extended, it became necessary to examine practically all outgoing mails. Communications obtained from known enemy agents were in many cases altered so as to convey false information and then allowed to proceed. Printed publica tions emanating from enemy sources and found in postal packets were often of a highly propagandist nature, and were therefore seized and condemned. Others, less objectionable, were condemned because of the extreme ease with which secret communications can be made (by code and derivation) through printed matter and the difficulty of detecting such messages. Certain neutral publications were placed on a "black list" and destroyed whenever found.
In other belligerent countries the methods adopted were some times more radical and based on the principle that no correspond ence can be dangerous which the addressee never receives.
The position of Great Britain gave her a valuable control over enemy communications by cable. A cable censorship was established at the beginning of the War under a military chief responsible to the Army Council. The action taken by the censors, however, was based on the International Tele graph Convention of 1875. Great importance was attached to commercial cables. The principle adopted was purely to withhold, as far as British cables were concerned, all facilities for carrying on trade with an enemy country. In spite of much neutral protest the British policy was upheld and shown to be in accordance with the International Convention. Trade cables often contained mili tary, and especially naval, information. (W. E. BAR.) Irish Free State Film Censorship.—The Censorship of Films Act (1923) established the office of Official Censor of Films, the holder to be appointed by the Minister of Home Affairs. No film can be exhibited in public until it has received a certificate from this official. For certain kinds of films a limited certificate may be issued authorizing the showing of the picture under certain restrictions (which must be expressed on the certificate). The Act also established a Censorship of Films Appeal Board of nine commissioners appointed in the same manner to which the film renter may appeal a decision of the Censor. In 1929 a Censorship of Publication Act was passed.
Preventive censorship, or the examination before publication of some form of communication (book or periodical, theatrical pre sentation, moving-picture or radio broadcast) by an official licens ing agency with power to approve, change or suppress the offering has not been a characteristic American method of controlling the public mind or morals. Freedom of communication has generally been limited 6y the police power, acting after publication, to protect the State, public morals or public peace. Such police inter ference has been called punitive censorship, for the fear of punish ment often acts as a deterrent to publication.
Preventive censor ships have existed from Colonial days to the present. The first printing-press (Cambridge, 1639) was licensed by the Massachu setts theocracy. Religious books were censored until 1695; and after that special manuscripts were submitted to authority. The Crown governors acted as licensers; and from 1686 to 1730 were instructed in their charters that "no book, pamphlet or other matter be printed without your especial leave and consent." The first newspaper, Publick Occurrences, Boston, 1690, was sup pressed after one issue. "Published by Authority" appeared on newspapers until about 1725. Since, pre-publication censorship has existed only in war-time. The trial of John Peter Zenger, publisher of the New York Journal in 1734, ended one kind of post-publication control by establishing the right of the jury to determine not only the fact of publication, but whether the words constituted a libel. The judge had hitherto claimed this dangerous prerogative. Since 1776 the State Constitutions have almost universally guaranteed freedom of the press. In 1 791 the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declared: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the free dom of speech or of the press." This ended all censorship. The courts agreed with the narrow dictum of Blackstone : "The liberty of the press consists in laying no previous restraints upon publica tions, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published." Liberals have maintained that this is a foolish and unhistoric interpretation since the censor had disappeared from the colonies about 1725-30, and that the clause meant a much larger freedom, with protection from post-publication punish ments unless the publication could be proven a clear and imminent danger to the State or public morals. The extreme libertarian holds that communications may be punished only when they cause an overt act since no other objective criterion of their psychological tendency can be found. The courts have generally accepted the conservative Blackstone view (see Patterson v. Colorado, 205 United States 454).
War has generally re-established some principle of censorship. During the flurry with France in 1798, the Federalist party passed the Sedition Act, which provided punishments for publications, oral or printed, that reflected on the Government, promoted sedition or resistance to law. About ten persons, chiefly Republican editors, were convicted. The issue defeated the Federalists in 180o, and the law lapsed, without inter pretation by the Supreme Court. President Jefferson released every person under punishment or prosecution. During the Civil War (1861-65) the postmaster general barred from the mails several Northern periodicals opposed to the war. Certain editors were imprisoned on the mere order of the secretary of State or of War. Newspaper offices in Missouri, Chicago and New York city were actually seized by troops, and issues of papers sup pressed. Certain correspondents had to submit articles to the military for approval. Telegraphic dispatches were censored in Washington. In Colorado, 1904, and West Virginia, 1912, State militia under so-called martial law arrested editors, or suppressed and censored labour newspapers during strikes. In the World War the press established a voluntary censorship. Informal con trol was exercised through a governmental instrument, the Com mittee on Public Information. The newspapers, press associa tions and other organizations co-operated to prevent the dis closure of military or naval information, or matter calculated to weaken public morale. Strict military censorship was applied to news from correspondents with the American forces abroad. Foreign language periodicals in the United States were regulated by the Trading with the Enemy Act (United States Compiled Statutes, 1918, 3,1154 j.) and had to file English translations. The Department of Justice declared, however, that the con stitutional right of free speech existed in war as in peace.
The so-called "postal censorship" is based on the power of the postmaster general to deny the sec ond-class mailing-privilege to publications that contain matter forbidden by certain Federal statutes. The idea was born in
when Southern representatives in Congress tried to pass a law forbidding Federal postmasters from distributing "incendiary" matter advocating the abolition of negro slavery in States that had banned such agitation. The law failed of passage, but in fact Southern postmasters never delivered Abolitionist papers. In the Civil War, a Congressional committee upheld the postmaster general's power to bar recalcitrant northern journals from the mails. In 1868 lottery information was forbidden the mails by law; and in 1873 the famous "Comstock Law" against obscene matter and contraceptive information was passed. This has pro duced many prosecutions and punishments. Later, matter further ing frauds, or the sale of alcoholic liquors, or advocating criminal anarchy was proscribed by statutes. The final extension came dur ing the World War when Title XII. of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917 made non-mailable any matter violating these specifications in Title I: (i.) making false statements or reports with intent to interfere with the operations or success of the armed forces of the United States; (ii.) wilfully causing or trying to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the armed forces; (iii.) wilfully obstructing the recruiting or enlistment services of the United States.
Heavy penalties (fine or imprisonment) were to be imposed on those attempting to use the mails for these purposes. The Sedition Act, May 16, 1918, added nine other specifications, such as, ob structing the sale of United States bonds; publishing language intended to cause scorn or contempt for the Government, Con stitution, flag or uniform; urging curtailment of the production of war needs. The postmaster general could act on "evidence satisfactory to him." Under these acts, the mailing-privilege was denied to one or more issues of two Socialist dailies, to many Socialist and radical magazines and even journals of liberal opinion. Periodicals had their second-class privilege absolutely suspended. Books and pamphlets were barred. More than zoo publications were interfered with to some degree—the widest interference with the press in the nation's history.
The Courts have always held that these statutes do not limit freedom of the press and refuse to review such exclusions as they are held legitimate exercises of an executive function. The post office avoids the position of a censor by refusing to define objectionable matter in advance. The liberal view holds that since the Government enjoys a postal monopoly, the publication denied this preferential rate (granted publications to encourage the dis semination of knowledge) cannot compete with those enjoying the privilege.
The Federal Government under the interstate commerce power, has forbidden the importa tion or transportation of prize-fight films, and lewd or obscene films. (Penal Code, Section 245, Revision of June 5, 1920.) Few cases have arisen under these statutes. Proposals to establish a Board of Censors in the Bureau of Education have been defeated.
Preventive censorships exist in Pennsylvania (19I I), Ohio (1913), Kansas 0914), Maryland, Virginia, and New York. Boards of appointed "well-qualified" persons, receiving salaries, preview all films for public exhibition, and may ban an entire fijm, delete scenes or words, or prescribe revision. The Supreme Court has held such censorships constitutional. Since certain of the large States with censorships are important sources of revenue, the pro ducers edit all films to conform to their codes, and thus six States influence the character of the films offered in all the States. In 1935 the Legion of Decency, the Catholic Church, and the Na tional Federation of Churches united to combat what they deemed low moral standards in motion pictures, by establishing a listing of approved or disapproved productions that the respectable pub lic might support or boycott. The producers have set up a volun tary self-censorship under a strict code. Certain municipalities control motion pictures through police powers, especially through licensing ordinances for exhibitions. Cases have arisen on films dealing with birth-phenomena, and those viewed as inflammatory of race, religious, or international controversy.
The Federal Commu nications Commission created by Public Law 416, June 19,
is empowered to license public broadcasting stations to use wave channels and time periods as "public convenience, interest, or ne cessity requires." (Section 303). Its censorship powers are ex plicitly limited to prohibiting profane or obscene language, and to enforcing equal rights for legal candidates for public office. It has intervened in cases of alleged obscenity or profanity, and to correct advertising abuses. Its acts reveal no political motives. Liberals declare the commission exercises an indirect censorship, since station owners, required to secure renewal of licences at short intervals, will conform to the program standards implied by the commission's acts or utterances. They oppose as legally unwar ranted the commission's order (May 1939) that short-wave broad casts "reflect the culture of the United States and international good will." As for the stations, they scrutinize materials before broadcasting them, at times censor offerings,and even bar speakers. Labour and socialist organizations have charged that these pre cautions, defensible as preventives of libelous or scandalous ut terances, have sometimes limited their air freedom. • The self regulatory code adopted by the National Association of Broad casters (1939) sets high standards for the handling of controver sial issues, and religion, with fairness and freedom.
No formal censorship of the theatre has ever existed in the United States. Interference has been by local prosecutors or the police, who have, on complaint, viewed exhibitions, and sometimes ordered them withdrawn or amended, or instituted proceedings against both producers and actors that have in certain cases resulted in fines or jail sentences. The New York statute (192 7) included matter dealing with sex perversions under obscenity. The suspension of the licences of theatres offering alleged immoral burlesque shows revealed the commissioner as a potential censor.
Interferences with the distribution of books and periodicals have been under the postal law, the customs law (it now provides for judicial review), and local morality ordinances. Liberal court decisions have limited the activities of the New York Vice Society against alleged pornographic publications that in the past had sup pressed books of admitted literary worth. In Boston, The Watch and Ward Society, by agreement with the prosecutor, listed books for the sale of which booksellers might be prosecuted. Later the police established their own censorship under which in 1927-28 over 5o volumes were proscribed, although many were sold every where else in the United States.
In recent years the Supreme Court has extended the free press guarantee by a decision in the Minnesota "Gag Law" case (283 United States 697) that the due process clause of the 14th Amend ment protected the press against invasions by State action ; in Grosjean v. American Press Company, Inc., it nullified a discrimi natory Louisiana tax on the advertising revenues of certain news papers because it denied constitutional press freedom; and in Georgia protected the distribution of leaflets, although the police power control over such distribution is not finally defined.
Chafee, Jr., Freedom of Speech (1920) ; Leon Bibliography.-Z. Chafee, Jr., Freedom of Speech (1920) ; Leon Whipple, The Story of Civil Liberty in the United States (1927), and Our Ancient Liberties (1927) ; Horace Kallen, editor, Freedom in the Modern World (1928) ; M. Ernst and Wm. Seagle, To the Pure (1928) ; Ruth Brindze, Not to Be Broadcast (1937). (L. R. W.)
