THE LEGAL POINT OF VIEW
While we are speaking of courts, let it be said on the side of truth that the decision of one judge as to whether or not a book is obscene is purely a personal standard of that judge. It is not a case law decision. It is the same thing as asking a judge "what is blue" and another "what is red."
True, there are some decisions on the definition of words like obscene or lewd but the application to a publication in question is the personal reaction of the presiding judge. That same judge could very well consider a strip-tease act ou the village square a work of art, His decision might be based on "advancement" over common decency.
On the other hand, if a chief of police on his own, or a board on its own, assumes final authority over a publication, the judge ruling on the case would have to state that such assumed authority was unconstitutional; and he would have "case law" to back him up.
The essence of gnod government is to hare the mayor who is invested with civie authority appoint a board so that they ean assist hin in law enforcement.
Sometimes the opposition forces make a big thing out of a decision by a liberal judge. Lut keep In mind that this judge, either by environment and/or relationship and culture, may have been tied ta a powerful publisher when pronoeuncing certain books an "expression of thought" when they should have been labeled "obscene." Don't let anyone tell you that there was any legal magic involved.
We repeat that it is the avalanche of filth and not simply one book which demands community action on the part of parents. It is difficnit to wrile a law against an evil which, in this case, is an abuse of the noble art of printing. But criminal forces are using tnass infiltration tactics, and, therefore, it has to be met by drastic measures.
MASS INFILTRATION
Mathematically there are not enough courts in the world to handle the mass infiltration of 259 million pocket books annually, of the 90 million comics monthly, and the innumerable sadistic-girlie magazines of various types. Court action on each would result ina ridiculaus situation.
This factor is anather reason why parents must act in each communily and assist their prosecuting officers and civic authorities in cleaning up their town with the preventive measures previously suggested.
We all hate the taking away of any true inalienable rights of man, hut certainly this spreading of indecency, of dangerous information, and of criminal teachings cannot come under the title of inaltenable rights.
As Thomas Jefferson put it: "Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are a gift of God?"
By whut stretch of the imagination, or of the law, can we contend that publications totally repulsive to the idea of God, can be said to be his gift to a free neaple?
If this Nation was founded on the principles of religion ail freedom and a trust in God, and upon the inalienable rights of man coming from God, uider His natnral law, then that which would destroy God's moral code canuat claiin protection under those frecdoms He ordained for us as a free people.
THE OPPOSITION
The loudest cry of the opposition, and a clever one shouted: "New Law Will Take Bible Out Of Home." The papers carried that headline. Some uninformed parents fell for it. The trickery behind that strategy even made the house committee of the legislature hesitate.
But it is not true that the Minnesota Legislature turned down a new law. Here are the facts: The proposed law was presented to the senate's general legislation committee by Senator B. Grottum and that committee composed of veterans of long service passed the bill from the committee at the first hearing.
But a companion bill, presented to the house crime prevention committee by Representative Gordon Forbes, was held up because about 75 persons, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, appeared in opposition. This house committee was composed of several freshman legislators, with strong Twin City membership, who fell for the sensational Bible-Shakespeare tactics. By postponing hearings, they pigeonholed the bill.
Therefore, the Legislature of the State of Minnesota never had a chance to vote on the bill. A poll showed that 85 percent of the people of Minnesota