Page:1954 Juvenile Delinquency Testimony.pdf/305

Rh a collapse af the unethical publisher, while building to even ioffier heights the proud profession of a grent and free press.

Our committee in Union has vigorously attacked the problem from several angles, In the legislative field we drafted and sponsored assembly bill 404, introduced by Frank Thompson, Jy., of Mercer County, This bill seeks to curb the sale of salacious, lascivious, and lurid literature at the retail and wholesale levels to minors under 16. We encouraged the incorporation nnder title 15 of the New Jersey Ness Denlers Association {nonprofit}, which is a self-policing, self-censoring medium employed by newsdenlers thronghout the State to compel publishers to temper their business methods with better taste and cleaner consciences. In cooperation with the public relations committee of onr bar assuciation, your chairman has addressed the following organizations tu date on this fimely topie: Catholic War Veterags of Union County, al Linden; Knights of Columbus, at New Providence; Youth Guidance Council, at Raubway; Union Gounty Grand Jurors’ Assaciation, at Mlizabeth; Catholie Daughters of America, at Trenton: Moly Name Socicly, at Roselle; and a YMCA forum, in Sumunit,

Respectfully submitted.

The. Mr. Kaplon, will you carry my best wishes back to the good people of Summit?

Mr. K.rion. I certainly shall.

(The following statement was submitted by Mi. J. Jerome Kaplon at a later date and is incorporated in the vecord ut this point.)

Summit, N. J., June 9, 1954.

,

of my testimony and to be read into the record?
 * Will you please include the contents of this letter as part

I want to express my Format appreeiation to you and to the other merobers of the committee for asking ie to testify last Friday in my dual capacity as chair- man of the juvenile delingtency committee of the Union County Bur Association of New Jersey and as (rovernor Meyner’s recent appoidtee as member of our juvenile delinqueney study commission, created by joint resolution of our Slate legislature.

TF admired your splendid handling of the questioning of the several witnesses that day, and was especially glad that the lestimony brought out vividly the burning, controversinl question: “If limited ecnsorship applying only te children is the partial answer to the comic-book problem, will legislation, based on such a principle, do violence to the first amendment of our Constitution-—-the ireedom of the press?”

It must be observed that the cutire field of censorship involves the suppression of freedom. This precious heritage, gnaranteed by the fi'st amendment jo the Constitution, must, at all costs, he held inyiolate; but at the opposite pole it may be safely argued that the right to prvieet the morals of our youth is just as srered as the right to protect the “freedom of the press,’ youchsafedt fur us in the Lill of Rights. You will recall that TE quoted the inumortal words of the late Justice Oliver Wendell Elelmes in that convection, whe, in a controversy involying freedom of speech gaid, “that the constitutional protection to say what we please does not give one the right to shout ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater.”

We all abhor ceusorship and, therefore, enconrage selfi-policing and voluntary censorship by the retail newsdealers. I am afruid that some publishers can- not be relied upon to do a satisfactory censorship job of their own; thesr vperil- tion is too big in this $100 million industry.

Int, we can approach this problem throngh the back door, starting with the Hitle retailer. ‘The flood of indeceut literature will surely “backiive,” cauzht in the mesh of an indignant public, nnwilling to buy trash. The relentless surge af such a movement will eucanrage the retailers, ne longer fearful of reprisals or sanctions, to return the rot to the wholesule distributors and, who, im return, will dump the mess right back from whence it originates, the irresponsible pub-