RIGHT OF CRITICISM

Evening Star, Issue 24282, 25 August 1942, Page 2

RIGHT OF CRITICISM

INHERENT DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE (N.Z.P.A. Special Aust. Correspondent) SYDNEY, August 17. “ This is the people’s war, and the people are entitled to read and see everything that, consistent with security, can be released.” This declaration was made by the ‘ Sydney Sun ’ in a leading article headed ‘ That Suppression Complex.’ Tho article was part of widespread protests which followed complaints by the Deputy Loader of tho Federal Opposition, Mr AV. M. Hughes, that he had been a victim of “ political censorship.” Earlier this month Mr Hughes made a statement about military operations in Papua. He criticised the leadership, lack of pre-vision, energy, and offensive spirit which, he contended, had permitted Japanese landings in the BunaCona sector. These statements were published in Australia and New Zealand, but Mr Hughes alleges that “ vital passages ” were deleted by censorship from despatches lodged for publication in England and America. Mr Hughes claimed that the meaning of his statement was thus “distorted and mutilated.”

Every major newspaper in Australia took nip the cudgels on behalf of the inherent democratic right of free expression and criticism. “ The censor’s true function is to prevent information of value reaching the enemy,” said the ‘ Sydney Morning Herald.’ “ Immediately he moves outside of that domain he is in danger of entrenching upon a cherished democratic preserve—the right of free expression of opinion. Censorship then acquires a political flavour.

Honest reporting, whether of news or views, can do this country no harm overseas. On the contrary, grave injury can he done both externally and internally by growth of a censorship which sets itself up as an arbiter, not only of what information should be kept from • the enemy, hut of what opinions shall he withheld from ourselves and our friends.” The incident was discussed by the Australian Advisory War Council, when the Government reaffirmed the principle of censorship on security grounds only. Before the council meeting the Prime Minister, Mr Curtin, was asked at a Press conference whether censorship had ever reached the heights achieved during the last war, when Mr Hughes was Prime Minister, "Yes, most certainly, but not the depth,” he answered. (During the last war Mr Curtin was proceeded against under Security Regulations for statements on the conscription issue.) ‘‘ The merits of Mr Hughes’s criticism, and his own alleged predilection for the use of the blue pencil during the last war are quite extraneous to the issue raised by the suppression, extending in one passage to complete of his views by the censor,” comments the 1 Sydney Morning Herald.’ “ A vital principle of democratic liberty is at stake.”

“ Our most cherished democratic right—freedom of speech—must not bo whittled away under cloak of war-time emergency,” says tho ‘ Daily Telegraph.’ “ Every journal with integrity will fight to' the last threats to freedom of discussion, on which we believe the well-being of our people depends.” AVith the subject of Press censorship so closely engaging public attention, prominence is given to censorship methods in Britain as revealed by Mr Irvine Douglas, manager anti editor of the Australian Associated Press. London, who has been on a short visit to .Australia. Ho writes:

“ Until this year agencies and correspondents cabling news abroad from Britain were perfectly free to say what they liked about the manner in which Britain was conducting the war, provided they gave away no military information. The censorship’s liberalism went even further. It adhered to the rule that anything, once it had been published in the British Press, could be sent abroad.

‘‘Early this year the Brit'sh authorities revoked this rule because they felt that certain articles cabled abroad were being couched in language calculated to cause disunity among the Allied nations, and for the first time in over two years of war it was laid down f hat opinion cabled abroad was subject to censorship. I have reason to believe, however, that this new rule has scarcely ever been invoked.

‘‘No provision in the British censorship rules would permit the suppression of a single word in the speech or statement of any representative of the people, unless the security of the Allied cause was involved. To attempt to stifle criticism of the Government or its method of conducting the war would never be allowed to enter the head of ai;v censor.

•’The other day Lady Astor. AI.P., rmde a speech in which she said some things about IR-ussia which were strongly criticised. I was astounded to hear some well-informed people in Sydney say that this speech should have been censored. Now one may have one’s own views on tho wisdom of the .speech, but that it should have become accepted in. a British demorcacy that it should have been suppressed was staggering, and gave some inkling of the extent to which tue Australian concept of tho functions of (msorship had departed from the British. 1 would go so far as to hazard a guess that, however much individuals in Britain might have differed from Lady Astor’s views, not one person there would dream of suggesting that the speech should have been censored.

“ One of the things for which the democracies are fighting is freedom of speech and a free Press, and one of the most vitalising influences in Britain since the beginning of the war lias been the vigorous and complethy untrammelled manner in which the Press has ventilated public opinion and forced the Government on more than one occasion to effect reforms in the conduct of the war. The British Press is recognised as an integral part in the mechanism of democratic government, and so far the censorship has not dared to tamper with it.”