Artists And Critics

New Zealand Listener, Volume 9, Issue 226, 22 October 1943, Page 3

Artists And Critics

out that the article which appears on Pages 4 and 5 of.this issue is a news story only. Nothing is further from our purpose than to express an opinion about the decision in the recent Auckland case, which was given by a Court better able to judge the facts than we are, and which has been accepted by both sides. But we do wish to draw attention to the principle involved in all such cases, namely that critics exercise their very necessary function at considerable risk; that they fail in their duty when they are dishonestly flattering, and yet endanger their pockets (and sometimes their liberty) when they are more frank than a jury may think permissible. It is certainly better that a critic should have to write in the fear of the law than that an artist should be exposed to irresponsible ridicule or abuse. The freer we are the more sensible we should be of the obligations of freedom, and for that reason the libel laws of most demo-. cratic countries are extremely strict. They say, roughly, that if damage is done an action will lie, and if they said less than that the public would not have sufficient protection. For print can of course be a cruelly damaging weapon. But the critic has his duty too. He must say what he thinks true when it is for the good of society that he should speak at all, and he should be able to say it without fear if he speaks courteously, reasonably, and without malice. In other words, the line between fair and unfair comment should be drawn for the public good and not for the protection of vanity or incompetence. It is so drawn by law, and should be so drawn by those who apply the law, whether they sit on the Bench or listen in the jury-box. ie is perhaps necessary to point