COLUMN: Students call for censor's hand

---

by Jeff Zinsmeister

---

There was a sincere call to "draw a line" to hold publications to standards of inoffensiveness and decency. Subjective issues such as "offensiveness" and "respect" were raised as possible standards for content. How do we put these standards into place? Who will interpret said standards?

As the public as a whole cannot say, the only choice is a separate body to monitor and influence content. This, my good friends, is a call for the mighty arm of the censor, which unfortunately has enjoyed widespread public support in America despite what the nation's Constitution might imply. Have a look at 20th-century American censure, which was demanded by many well-meaning yet worried people. Public outcry has often been easily transferred to a central power, a result many may not consider when they seek "a standard."

Censorship was most manifest in and around the two world wars, but is not necessarily confined to wartime. The outcry against subversive elements in society spurred government action. The WWI years produced the American Protection League, a semi-secret organization to investigate the loyalty of wartime job applicants. Unfortunately, this included breaking up Socialist meetings and burglarizing offices.

The year 1918 witnessed the passage of the Sedition Act, prohibiting language disloyal to the government until an armistice. Disrespect toward the flag or the government was punishable by 20 years in jail. Prosecutions under this act were common. Socialist leader Eugene Debs himself was sentenced to 10 years in jail for a statement against the government.

Such censorship was to be extended beyond wartime as well. Since many radicals were immigrants, the October 1918 Immigration Act was a convenient tool to bypass constitutional questions and allow for the deportation and exclusion of immigrants who believed in the violent overthrow of the government, and such a law was used extensively from 1919 to 1920, the years of the popular "Red Scare." These years also saw the newly-formed American Legion indulge in tacitly sanctioned orgies of destruction against socialist organizations. Approval of these actions came from both the top, such as Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, and the bottom, as American Legion veterans and groups of vigilantes lynched socialists and burned their meeting places.

Even before WWII, the nation turned to censure. The bipartisan House Un-American Activities Committee was formed in 1938 as a bipartisan committee, and in August 1939, the Hatch Act passed, forbidding government employees to engage in political activity, and then in the summer of 1940, the Smith Act passed Congress.

Not only did it mandate the registration and deportation of aliens à la 1918, but it also made it unlawful for a citizen to support or associate with those advocating the overthrow of the government by force. This act was upheld by the Supreme Court even until 1957. Locally, popular outcry banned "subversive" textbooks from schools and ousted Communist Party members from educational institutions.

Peacetime is no less interesting. The 1920s was a period when localities were heavily involved in the censure of books and periodicals, especially in the schools. California banned the publications The Nation and New Republic from schools, and the American Legion and the VFW led crusades to ensure that texts "preach[ed] on every page a vivid love of America."

The late '60s and early '70s and also the late '80s (remember Tipper?) were privy to another wave of censorship attempts from both sides of the political fence. These attempts were made mostly by groups of citizens and parents, rather than government officials. They attacked books like Slaughterhouse Five , as well as texts such as How to Avoid Social Diseases: A Handbook for being too liberal, while books addressing racism were criticized for being favorable to one side or the other.

Those who call for a line to be drawn whereupon printed material must "treat members of the community with respect and dignity" (to paraphrase from Monday) may have a nice vision. Unfortunately, it is nothing but pie-in-the-sky. A standard requires interpretation of words such as "respect" and "dignity." Who will interpret for the student body? The Student Association? ADVANCE? The Office for Student Affairs? Or even an elected body?

The people who "never want to see such things in the Thresher again" not only would put censors in place but would in the process surrender their own power to protest and influence content up to an administrative body. They will also follow a long tradition. Either way, that is what the well-meaning folk offended by journalism wish to have, and I am not sure that they really desire that. Be careful what you ask for. ...

Jeff Zinsmeister is a Will Rice College freshman and the assistant opinion editor.

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the November 22, 1996 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.