Spontaneous Musings

Learning quite a bit about the censorship laws of the 1920s and 30s, and how the courts interpreted the First Amendment. Including a brief history on Ernst Morris, the co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU.

Interesting quotes :

1. Margaret Anderson, the editor of The Little Review, insisted that the genuine art rested upon two principles:

"First, the artist has no responsibility to the public whatever." The public, in fact, was responsible to the artist. "Second, the position of the great artist is impregnable... You can no more limit his expression, patronizingly suggest that his genius present itself in channels personally pleasing to you, than you can eat the stars."

This reminds me of a discussion that I had this weekend with two women from India, who stated prior to colonialism - they had more freedom of expression. The influx of the British and the missionaries had to a degree quelled that and made them self-conscious. They began to self-police themselves. The culture responsible for the Karma Sutra was now afraid to talk about sex at all.

Art was quelled.

It also reminds me of a discussion I had with a friend once regarding Margaret Mitchell and Flannery O'Connor's racism - she stated that she would rather it wasn't suppressed, because it enabled her to understand how they thought better - so she could come up with a counter-argument.

Ernst Morris's take on Censorship was slightly different and more encompassing. Morris started his career fighting the ban on a sexual education guide or pamphlet.
Then eventually chose to take up the fight regarding Ulysses, in an effort to change the censorship laws of the US. Ernst Morris thought of Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment as a way to keep the culture roiling not as a source of stability.

Censorship was a tactic used by entrenched powers to quell democracy's inherent turbulence, and groups like the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Ernst thought, were their moral instruments. Censorship was what happens when power brokers who benefit from the status quo team up with moralists who believe society is perpetually on the brink of collaspe.

To fight for the freedom of books was to fight for the priniciple of self-governance that had inspired the American Revolution. For Ernst, there was no strict separation between political and sexual ideas - burning books sent a chill across the entire culture.

"Censorship," he wrote, "had a pervading influence on the subconscious recesses of individual minds." It altered the way the country approached science, public health, psychology and history. Only a blinkered Victorian mentality, Ernst thought, could think that the Roman Empire fell because of its moral decadence."

[This is just my personal opinion, gathered from various studies, I can't guarantee that is absolutely true: No, the Roman Empire ironically fell for the same reason the British Empire eventually did. If the Victorians had a been a wee bit more self-aware - they may have stopped the downfall of their own empire. Over-expansion. In short they took on more than they could chew, over-drew on their resources, and went bankrupt. It's also the same reason the Soviet Union and US are running into problems now - again taking on far more than you can afford - or allowing your grasp to outstretch your reach. WWI just about did Britain in. Rome was pretty much done in by all the wars and territorial fights that they were constantly dealing with. Had zip to do with culture, or sex, and a heck of a lot to do with violent and somewhat pricy warfare.]

The worst part about the censorship regime was that it was maddeningly arbitrary. Books that circulated for years might be banned without warning. Customs officials might declare a book legal only to have the Post Office issue it's own ban. A judge or jury could acquit a book one day and condemn it the next, and the wording of the statues themselves stoked confusion.

Apparently the NY Criminal Law Statute had about five descriptive words, while the Federal Law just had one - obscene. So Ernst decided to go after the Federal Tariff Law. So instead of going after the law regarding the transit of publications through US Mail, he went through the law governing imports from foreign countries. This way no one went to jail and they might get it over-turned.

Only one problem? The customs officials didn't make a habit of searching every packaged imported, hence the reason people had been sneaking the book in by importing it. Ernst had to take the package back to the customs officials and insist that they search it, so that it would be seized and he could fight the law in court.

I found this to be hilarious. He also had Joyce's assistant cut and past critical praise in the front of the book - so that he could use the critical praise in court.

Fascinating book - amongst the more informative and interesting non-fiction or historical novels that I've read. Most have a tendency to put me to sleep. Not that this one doesn't as well...but not quite as often.