Editorial: Freedom of reading
No reading necessarily influences the reader.
But all reading, to some degree, affects the general attitudes of the reader, although the effect may be infinitesimal.
And no reading affects all readers alike, or even any two of them precisely alike.
Which is by way of saying that there is no way of proving how any political biased or “interpretive” writing will affect any given number of readers.
If such persuasive writing were possible, somebody would write it and the election would be over.
Even the most biased or the most expressive political “masterpiece” will have a highly diversified effect on any group. It will please most those already sold on the same idea. It will aggravate those opposed to the idea. It may stimulate thought on the part of others, but it may also puzzle them or simply leave them cold.
All of which made the Taft law “censoring” books, movies, newspapers and periodicals for the Armed Forces a futile measure.
But it was also a ridiculous measure because it attempted to prohibit the adult men and women in the Armed Forces from reading material which is available to every schoolchild in America. It treated those entrusted with fighting the war as if they were too immature to be trusted with reading for themselves.
It was further ridiculous because the law itself was open to divergent interpretation.
The War Department, going to an extreme, ruled out standard works on the mere mention of political subjects. The Navy Department, on the other hand, pursued an unperturbed course by giving the men in the Navy the reading they seemed to want, regardless of content.
Congress has approved amendments to the Taft law so it no longer bars reading material available to the general public.
President Roosevelt cannot act too quickly in signing the Senate amendments to this unmoral and insulting law.
Freedom of reading is as basic as freedom of speech.