The Dominion. MONDAY, MAY 22, 1944. AUSTRALIA’S CENSORSHIP CODE

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 200, 22 May 1944, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, MAY 22, 1944. AUSTRALIA’S CENSORSHIP CODE

Important and, indeed,- vital principles involving liberty of speech have been affirmed under the terms of settlement of the dispute between Australian newspapers and the Commonwealth Government. In the new code of censorship which has been drawn up for the guidance of the Press and the authorities, it is' provided that “censorship shall be imposed exclusively for reasons of defence security,” and this provision in itself represents a timely and valuable acknowledgment of the justifiable purpose—and proper limits —of emergency censorship controls. The recent disclosures in Australia have served to enlighten many people as to the insidious manner in which censorship powers—employed under a cloak of enforced secrecy—have been extended and used for political purposes. Nevertheless it may not be easy for those out of touch with the day-to-day operation of censorship to realize the full import of an agreement that “defence security” only shall provide just reason for a Government to forbid publication of news or views. The remaining clauses of the code, however, are indicative of the extent to which the Australian settlement promises .to remedy abuse of this dangerous weapon. Censorship, says the code, shall not be imposed merely for the maintenance of morale or the prevention of despondency or alarm. Here the important point is that the power to suppress the publication of news simply on the ground that it “might injure public morale” is capable of such wide definition that a censor who is not acting solely in the interests of national defence security can, if he so wishes, enforce secrecy about any matter likely to be of public concern. He can, for example, prevent publication of criticism of governmental action in the purely domestic field of national life, with the excuse that such criticism “might injure morale.” The investment of individual servants of a Government with untrammelled authority of this nature is a perilous thing, the elimination of which in Australia sets an important democratic example. “Censorship,” states another clause in the new Commonwealth code, shall not prevent the reporting of industrial disputes or stoppages. In this clause there is implied a common-sense acknowledgment of a fact which has been proved over and over again, namely, that suppression of publication does not suppress news. More often than not, it merely suppresses truth. News travels by word of mouth and verbal gossip gives it the distorted and sometimes doubly-disturb-ing shape of rumour. No censorship which has ever been devised can prevent the spread of news by word of mouth; yet, time and again, attempts have been made to interfere with news of industrial disputes or stoppages to hide these happenings from the public or distort their significance—particularly their political significance. Frequently the result has been the reverse of that intended. In the absence of news—or because of the inadequacy of news—rumour has run rife—■ actually to the deeper detriment of public morale and, incidentally, of public faith in political integrity. The Australian settlement is designed to prevent this crude tampering, and without doubt will be beneficial to public morale. This is also bound to be the result in the case of the- clause in the Commonwealth code which upholds freedom of comment and criticism however strongly expressed, and establishes the rule that mere exaggeration or inaccuracy shall not be a ground of censorship. These latter points are of some importance for the reason that matters of accuracy or emphasis are very often matters of opinion. Every reputable journal strives to be accurate, but what may be accurate in the eyes of a newspaper and the public, may be held by some censorship official to be inaccurate or wrongly emphasized. But the deeper principle here involved is that the function of censorship is to guard defence security, and not to sit in bureaucratic judgment on questions of accuracy which may be endlessly debatable. That is not the censor’s job. When he does attempt to perform it, there arises immediately a danger that his judgment will be distorted politically and that his interference will do more national harm than good. As to freedom of comment and criticism, this is a British and a democratic right for which free nations are fighting. It needs no explanation to adult minds, and its affirmation in the Commonwealth code is deeply significant as indicating the real nature of the peril created when bureaucratic censorship is permitted to take the bit in its teeth. The Australian revolt against censorship dictation, with all the political implications it has been shown to possess, has had salutary results. Moreover, it has produced a notable document which stand* - as an example no British community should ignore.