Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

"INTOLERANCE"

DUBIOUS ADVERTISEMENT

AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT At the Magistrate's Court yesterday Mr. S. E. M'Cnrlhy, S.M., delivered reserved judgment in the case of tho Crown v. Duncan Neven (touring manager for J. C. Williamson, Ltd.). Tho information alleged that the defendant caused to be inserted in the "Evening Post" of July 1G last an advertisement of the kinematograph picture "Intolerance," whereby that newspaper became an indecent document. The.judgment stated that the film professed to represent society in ancient and modern times, and passes quickly from one epoch to another. It had been the subject of eevero criticism on tho ground of alleged immoral tendencies. On the other hand it had been commend-, ed as a bold attempt to sandy educate the masses on civil rights and sex relationship. , , , ~ The judgment went on to quote tno> text of the advertisement and to refer to the arguments for the prosecution that the advertisement was indecent within the meaning of the Act, because it wag a public notice of an intention to present a film which had in another city been publicly denounced as obscene, coupled with an.invitation to 'all Wellington/' on paying the advertised: prices, to be present. The contention for the defenco was that tiie film "Intolerance" was not indecent, ' and that the advertisement was merely an invitation to the public to come and judge for themselves! Continuing, the Magistrate quoted the meaning of the words "indecent document" as defined in tho Act, and said that Section 5 of tho Act provided that a Magistrate in determining whether a document was indecent had to take into consideration not merely the value of the document, but also the nature and circumstances of tho act done by the defendant, the purpose with which tho act was done, and the literary, scientific, or artistic merit or importance of tho document. No document was held to be indecent unless, having regard to the' above and all other relevant considerations, the Magis. trato was of opinion that tho ■ act was of an immoral or mischievous tendency. Tho place where the film was exhibited was nightly crowded by persons of Jill ages and both sexes till a late hour. No evidence was tendered as to tho nature of the film or its moral or artistic merits or demerits. The contention for the prosecution was that this was immaterial if tho advertisement complained of was hold to be an invitation to inspect a film denounced us immoral. It was on theso grounds it was contended by the prosecution that the advertisement had an immoral and mischievous tendency, and that tho newspaper in which it was inserted,.and its very insertion, became an indecent document within the meaning of tho Act. Now tho criticisms in tho advertisement were neither of them veiled; the film was broadly denounced as immoral and obscene. Anyone of coinmn sense, especially anyone connected with the theatrical world, as the defendant in this case was, must have known that tho insertion of such un advertisement would attract patrons anxious to whet jaded appetites by gazing on a film of doubtful 'reputation. The film advertised for exhibition might have been as pure as 'driven snow; that, however, would not detract from tho vicious tendency of the advertisement. _ _ Concluding, the Magistrate c-aid: Ihe advertisement now" under review was, in my opinion, inserted to create the impression in the public mind that the film 'Intolerance' was blatantly obscene in tho hopo of swelling the number or visitors to the show. That being so the conclusion follows that the advertisement complained of *as an unmoral and mischievous tendency, and the newspaper in which it was inserted became, therefore, an indecent document within the meaning of the Indecent Publications Aot. The defendant wilh be convicted and fined &, and ordered to pay the costs of the Court, >s., jiikl solicitor's fee, £2 2s. • On the application of Mr. A. bray, K.C., tho fine was increased to .£5 is., m order to allow of an appeal, security for which was fixed.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19171005.2.6

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 9, 5 October 1917, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
668

"INTOLERANCE" Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 9, 5 October 1917, Page 3

"INTOLERANCE" Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 9, 5 October 1917, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert