The Playboy Philosophy

George Bernard Shaw wrote, "All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorships."

Eugene O'Neill put it more bluntly: "Censorship of anything, at any time, in any place, on whatever pretense, has always been and always will be the last cowardly resort of the boob and the bigot."

On June 4th, we were arrested in our home by four intrepid officers of the law, on order of Chicago Corporation Counsel John Melaniphy, for "publishing and distributing an obscene publication." The "obscene publication" turned out to be the June issue of Playboy and what the Corporation Counsel objected to, he said, was the picture story on film star Jayne Mansfield nude in bed and bubble bath in scenes for her latest contribution to cinematic art, Promises, Promises!

We discussed the obscenity charge and arrest at length in the last installment of The Playboy Philosophy, because we believe this single example of censorship can add considerable insight into the real dangers of such police action in a free America. We hope to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, in this second installment on the subject, that a good deal more is involved here than nude photographs of Jayne Mansfield and that what we are faced with is a frightening example of church-state suppression of freedom of the press that strikes at the very heart of our democracy.

Why Now?

Irv Kupcinet expressed the feelings of many when he wrote, in his Chicago Sun-Times column: "The obvious question about the arrest of Playboy publisher Hugh Hefner on obscenity charges based on the Jayne Mansfield nudes in the June issue is: Why now? Playboy has been publishing nudes of voluptuous dishes for years." Why now? It is a very good question and in attempting to find the answer -- in attempting to establish the real motivations behind the arrest -- an insidious, twisted labyrinth of pious prejudice and prudery may be brought to light.

It is virtually impossible to look deep within the human mind and find the sometimes complex motives that lie hidden behind a single act, unless your subject reclines willingly upon a psychoanalyst's couch. We have no analytical couch, and if we had, our adversaries in this little melodrama would surely decline to lie there. So instead of supplying suspected motives, we'll offer up not one, but a chain of events, and let the reader draw his own conclusions.

First it must be mentioned that Playboy has never been adjudged obscene by any court in the land. In last month's editorial, we entered into an extensive examination of the recent Supreme Court and other high-court decisions on, and definitions of, obscenity. We successfully established, we think, that not by the wildest extensions of these definitions and decisions could the June issue -- or any issue -- of Playboy be considered legally obscene.

We went further, pointing out the extent to which Playboy meets contemporary community standards, as defined by the Supreme Court, and how the text and illustrations in this magazine are considerably more respectable than much of the material now available in a great many books, magazines and movies in our present-day society -- and far less objectionable, by any objective standard, than material already declared not obscene by our courts.

We went further still, pointing out that Chicago censors had approved scenes in a French film for exhibition that very month that were far bolder than the still photographs in Playboy. And pointing out, too, that similar (if less revealing) nude bed scenes (it was the photographs of Jayne in bed to which the Corporation Counsel took particular exception) were published at the same time in two other major magazines (Esquire and The Saturday Evening Post) with nary a Counsel criticism.

And after all else was said and done, since similar photographs had appeared many times before in the pages of Playboy during our nearly 10 years of publishing, with never so much as a discouraging word from the custodians of this fair city's morality -- why now?

What special, possibly pre-established perspective or prejudice set Playboy apart from the rest? And what prompted the action at this particular time?

Religious Freedom in Chicago

If the June pictorial on Jayne Mansfield is not so different from many that Playboy has printed before, what is different about the June issue -- or perhaps one or more of the issues that immediately preceded it? Well, nothing really -- except ... ! Except The Playboy Philosophy, this continuing editorial statement of our personal convictions and publishing credo, begun last December and carried in each issue since. These first installments have been primarily devoted to our concern over the separation of church and state in a free society and critical of organized religion's undue influence over portions of our government and law, thus emphasizing that true religious freedom means not only freedom of, but freedom from religion.

Chicago remains one of the few major cities in America that is dominated by a single religious denomination -- that is, where a majority of the officials in power belong to one church and where their administrative decisions sometimes appear to be predicated more on religious dogma than civil law. We state this fact sadly, for it is also true that the present city administration is far and away the best that Chicago has had in many, many years.

In earlier installments of the Philosophy, we cited, and criticized, a number of specific instances in which, it seemed to us, Chicago officialdom had been less concerned with the importance of maintaining a separate church and state than they should have been. The Chicago Censor Board, made up of the wives of policemen, denied a license to the Italian film, The Miracle, on the grounds that it was "sacrilegious." (New York, another city that has a history of similar religious prejudice, did the same.) The Supreme Court declared this an unconstitutional basis for censorship, as it infringed upon religious freedom. In his decision in the Times Film Corp. vs. Chicago, Chief Justice Earl Warren stated, "Recently, Chicago refused to issue a permit for the exhibition of the motion picture Anatomy of a Murder ... because it found the use of the words 'rape' and 'contraceptive' to be objectionable ... The New York censors forbade the discussion in films of pregnancy, venereal disease, eugenics, birth control, abortion, illegitimacy, prostitution, miscegenation and divorce. A member of the Chicago Censor Board explained that she rejected a film because 'it was immoral, corrupt, indecent, against my ... religious principles.' "

Following the Supreme Court's decision, Chicago censors promptly rebanned The Miracle on the basis that it was "obscene." (Which supports our earlier observation that the charge of obscenity is often used to censor material that offends a particular group for reasons that have nothing to do with sex, from religion to racial equality.)

And it should be noted that the word "contraceptive," which Chicago censors wished to expunge from Otto Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder, can be considered offensive to only that specific religious minority that opposes birth control.

Birth control became a major issue in Chicago earlier this year, after millionaire philanthropist Arnold H. Maremont had accepted a position as chairman of the Illinois Public Aid Commission. Maremont announced that the IPAC had adopted a resolution to make birth-control information and devices available to public-assistance recipients upon request and provided that the contraceptives were prescribed by a physician.

Maremont stated that the new IPAC program would accomplish the following worthwhile ends: (1.) "It will give the needy the same option of determining the sizing and spacing of their families that others in our society have." (2.) "It will curb the soaring numbers of illegitimate children we currently are closing our eyes to." (3.) "It will produce a multimillion-dollar annual savings for the taxpayers of this state."

Then the public furor began -- with sides chosen along disturbingly, if predictably, religious lines. Prominent Catholics, including Chicago's Mayor Daley, denounced the plan as "immoral," because it would make the assistance available to public-aid recipients who were not married or married and not living with their husbands. The day before the mayoral election, which Daley won handily, Republican candidate Benjamin S. Adamowski made a bid for the city's Catholic vote by filing an anti-birth-control suit against the IPAC in Superior Court. The IPAC would have customarily been defended by Illinois Attorney General William G. Clark, but Clark, a Catholic, announced that he, too, was opposed to the program. Clark stated that he considered the plan illegal and he advised the State Auditor not to sign and the State Treasurer not to honor warrants drawn to cover the costs of the birth-control program.

Maremont hired private legal counsel and vowed to carry the fight for approval of the Commission's program to the U. S. Supreme Court, if necessary. "This issue and all its ramifications will be aired before the highest tribunals of the land, if that is what it takes to permit us to move ahead with the program," he said.

"This Commission has every right to establish its policy, a policy which countless individuals and organizations support.... I have stated many times that this policy has been established with all the built-in safeguards that our conscientious and deeply concerned commissioners can provide."

Attorney Thomas C. McConnell, hired by the IPAC to defend it after Attorney General Clark sided with opponents of its program, charged in court that Clark had "sold his client [the IPAC] down the river" by joining Adamowski in his suit. McConnell accused Clark of following "the dogmas of his own religion" and he requested a change of venue on the ground that Superior Court Judge John J. Lupe was prejudiced.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported, "Outside the court, Clark, a Roman Catholic, said: 'This is not a Catholic question, a Protestant question, or a Jewish question. All religions say that couples should marry before engaging in this type of conduct.' Clark repeated that he opposes the IPAC's program on grounds that it encourages illicit and immoral behavior...."

Clark neglected to mention that the "morality" aspect of the program was actually a smoke screen raised by some of its opponents and that most of the prominent Protestant and Jewish individuals and organizations that had been contacted, as well as those of no religious affiliation, favored the IPAC plan. The Illinois Council of Churches, representing 11 Protestant denominations, went on record as favoring the birth-control program for public-aid recipients; the policy statement was adopted unanimously by the Council's legislative committee.

Ethel Parker, of the Independent Voters of Illinois, stated, in a letter to the Sun-Times: "The Independent Voters of Illinois at this time repeats its stand on using public funds to furnish birth-control information and supplies to women on relief. We are in favor of such a plan.

"Our contention is that preventing an increase of unwanted children is a policy of moral responsibility first and secondarily a prudent economic move.... So long as birth control is not forced on anyone whose religious views forbid it. IVI fails to see how religion enters into this controversy. It is also very naive for anyone to believe that the use of contraceptives promotes immorality. In our view their use merely prevents adding to social ills resulting from promiscuity."

In another letter, in the same issue of the Sun-Times, a Catholic reader insisted that the State Senate intervene, altering the IPAC program so that contraceptives could be "prescribed only by a doctor for married women living with their husbands and only when their lives would be endangered by pregnancy." (Emphasis added.) The reader also indicated that Governor Kerner should ask for Arnold Maremont's resignation.

Catholic Superior Judge Lupe refused to grant a change of venue, requested on the ground that he was prejudiced, and proceeded to rule against the IPAC in the Adamowski suit to halt the birth-control program. The State Senate then passed a measure drastically curtailing the Illinois Public Aid Commission's authority to help mothers under its care to avoid childbirth by use of contraceptives and Senator W. Russell Arrington introduced a bill to abolish the IPAC. In a seemingly inconsistent move, the Senate confirmed Governor Kerner's reappointment of IPAC Chairman Maremont, but then -- in an unprecedented move -- it revoked the reappointment, because a number of the senators took exception to some of Maremont's public utterances regarding the Senate and IPAC aid. Financier Maremont was thus returned to the less fickle world of his private businesses and philanthropies, and Illinois lost the services of an exceptionally gifted public-spirited citizen.

The point in this controversy over birth control, as in the matter of censorship, is not the right of Catholics, or any other religious group, to hold and exercise whatever beliefs they choose. It is the undemocratic action of forcing their religious convictions on other citizens who do not share their views.

In commenting on the Chicago controversy in an article on religious freedom and the importance of the separation of church and state, Reverend H. B. Sissel, Secretary for National Affairs of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., wrote recently in Look: "Seventeen states prohibit the sale or distribution of contraceptives [to the general public] except through doctors or pharmacists; five states ban all public sale of such devices. Although these statutes were enacted in the 19th Century under Protestant pressure, times and attitudes have changed for many Protestants. Today, they believe that Catholics have no right to keep such laws in operation. Some Catholic spokesmen have agreed that their Church is not officially interested in trying to make the private behavior of non-Catholics conform to Roman Catholic canon law. Meanwhile, the laws stay on the books, though they are being tested in the courts."

The Reverend Sissel commented on a number of other church-state conflicts in society today and concluded his thoughtful article by stating: "The so-called 'wall of separation' between church and state has been breached often by both, each using the other for its own ends....

"I know it is a sign of my bias as a Christian (I hope many other Christians share the bias) that I believe, in the long run, that political and civil liberties are safest when the church is free to be the church. And by 'free,' I do not mean just free of external coercion. The freedom of the church lies in its recognition of its basic mission: to be deeply involved in the personal, social, political and economic life of the world -- but not to be identified with the world: to encourage compassion, a desire for justice and a vision of what it means to be truly human; and to renew that vision by living close to the wellspring of its faith.

"Churches and synagogues, clergymen and churchgoers, all must regain the unique sense of purpose and mission that God has given them to perform by worship within and witness without. All need to face, and to deal with, the urgent problems bound up in the issue of church and state. And all need to recognize that when men of faith begin to look to the state as a pillar of religion, the edifice of faith they seek to save has already begun to collapse."

Nowhere is this truth more evident than in matters of free speech and press. Religious censorship reared its ugly head in Chicago in an even bigger controversy than the recent birth-control suppression when, late in 1956, the film Martin Luther was scheduled to be shown over WGN-TV and then suddenly canceled. Prominent Protestant clergymen and private citizens charged "Roman Catholic censorship" and a Protestant Action Committee issued a statement saying: "Pending a full review of the situation, the committee decided today to authorize a formal protest with the Federal Communications Commission against WGN-TV for the banning of the film."

Robert E. A. Lee, executive secretary of Lutheran Church Productions, Inc., which made Martin Luther, wrote of the Catholic censorship of the film in Chicago, and around the world, in The Christian Century, saying: "In Chicago, all the fuss is focused on just why WGN-TV got cold feet and 'pulled the film.' Martin Luther was scheduled for the December date at the specific request of the station after its officials had carefully previewed it....[Then] the showing was canceled.

"Aroused Chicagoans were convinced that they knew why. A volunteer action committee of Protestant leaders of the city called a press conference and bluntly charged 'de facto censorship,' claiming that WGN-TV had yielded to pressures 'mobilized by the Roman Catholic Church.' The station's public relations department declared, in a polished euphemism, that an 'emotional reaction' had led them to cancel. A spokesman for the chancellery of the Chicago Roman Catholic archdiocese denied that any 'official' protest was made. It is conceivable that the representative of Cardinal Stritch who visited a WGN-TV official at 2 p.m. on December 14 [one week before the planned showing] had other reasons for the appointment. But, oddly enough, a responsible station executive telephoned us in advance of the representative's visit to get information to support his own arguments as to why Martin Luther deserved to be televised.

"The Chicago case makes more urgent that question that many concerned individuals -- including some Catholics -- have been asking: Is one religious group really attempting to dictate what the public can see and hear through mass-communication media? Is the Roman Catholic Church becoming more aggressive in extending its censorship program beyond its own sphere?"

Lee went on to comment on the banning of the film in Quebec: "In that part of the world the political influence of the cardinal is no secret. It is known that the censor received his instructions from higher authorities. And a person who discussed this situation frankly with the provincial premier revealed that the decision was 'requested' by an ecclesiastical authority. This despotism boomeranged mightily -- as such despotism anywhere must sooner or later. When, in spite of the ban, a courageous group of Protestant churches in the Montreal area staged a united demonstration by showing the film simultaneously for a week on their own premises, they had seats for only half the comers, But the government refused to rescind the ban."

The Canadian ban was not lifted until 1962. when the censorship board of Quebec was changed and the new board permitted showing of the film. Lee mentioned that a number of Catholic leaders throughout the world had not reacted so emotionally to the movie which, while showing the Protestant side of the Reformation, was in no sense anti-Catholic. Many Catholics, here and abroad, were also openly concerned about their fellow Catholics acting as censors. A letter in Time said: "I am one of the many Catholics. I hope, who are appalled at the shallow thinking of our Chicago brethren who became a pressure group protesting the showing of the TV film Martin Luther. If, as Catholics, we possess the truth, why do they resort to such intolerance in order to prohibit what they consider to be false from the beginning. We cannot deny the historical existence of Luther and his founding of the Protestant Church. Do Chicago Catholics fear the facts of history? 1 wonder if they realize how much their bigotry damages the cause of Catholicism and the fellowship of man?"

Despite the controversy caused by the Chicago censorship. WGN-TV declined to reschedule the film. Sterling "Red" Quinlan. the rebel head of rival TV station WBKB. then accepted the motion picture and aired it without further incident. "Red" Quinlau is a liberal Catholic.

The banning of the June issue of Playboy caused no comparable public outcry -- for the religious implications were less clearly defined. But as we shall see, the situation is disturbingly similar.

In The Playboy Philosophy, we have been outspoken in our opposition to any tyranny over the mind of man, whether invoked in the name of the state or in the name of God. We specifically criticized the part that organized religion -- Protestant as well as Catholic -- has played in such suppression throughout history, down to the present day. The views that we have expressed are shared by many of the more liberal clergy -- of all denominations -- who recognize that religious freedom requires that the church remain free from any involvement in government and any direct coercion of the citizens in a free society.

We were especially critical, in the April and May issues, of the Chicago "justice" meted out to comedian Lenny Bruce. In June the administrators of that "justice" turned their ire on Playboy.

Bruce was arrested on charges of giving an obscene performance. He had been previously arrested on the same charge in San Francisco and Los Angeles. There were differences in the Chicago and California incidents, however: In San Francisco, he was acquitted and in Los Angeles, all charges were subsequently dropped: in Chicago, he was found guilty and given the maximum sentence of one year in prison and a S1000 fine (the decision is now being appealed). In Chicago, also, the license of the night club in which he appeared was revoked for two weeks, in an administrative proceeding that preceded the trial. In other words, before the actual charge of obscenity was ever heard in a court of law, the city suspended the night club's license for having permitted an obscene performance on its premises. And by this action, Chicago officials succeeded in banning Bruce from any future appearances at night clubs in this city, since -- no matter what the final outcome of the trial -- it will take a very brave club owner indeed to book Bruce knowing he is thereby placing his liquor license in jeopardy.

Why did the California and Chicago trials end so differently? There were religious implications in the Chicago arrest and trial that did not exist in either San Francisco or Los Angeles. Variety reported, after the first day of hearings on the liquor-license revocation: "After nearly a full day of hearing prosecution witnesses, it is evident that, in essence, Bruce is being tried in absentia. Another impression is that the city is going to a great deal of trouble to prosecute Alan Ribback, the owner of the club, although there have been no previous allegations against the café and the charge involves no violence or drunken behavior.... Testimony so far indicates that the prosecutor is at least equally as concerned with Bruce's indictment of organized religion as he is with the more obvious sexual content of the comic's act. It's possible that Bruce's comments on the Catholic Church have hit sensitive nerves in Chicago's Catholic oriented administration and police department."

The religious considerations in the case arose again during the trial, as Variety reported in a second news story: A number of people "have been puzzled by the arrest, since it is the general opinion of many cafe observers that performances with similar sexual content have been overlooked at other Chi clubs It's thought that Bruce's attacks on organized religion may have been the deciding factor in making the arrest, or so the line of prosecution questions would indicate to date."

Chicago's daily newspapers made no mention of the religious implications in the arrest and trial, but on the basis of sworn affidavits from two witnesses, The Realist reported the following conversation between the Captain of the Vice Squad and the then owner of The Gate of Horn (he has since been forced to sell his interest in the club) following Bruce's arrest.

Captain McDermott: I'd like to speak to the manager.

Alan Ribback: I'm the manager.

McDermott: I'm Captain McDermott. I want to tell you that if this man ever uses a four-letter word in this club again, I'm going to pinch you and everyone in here. If he ever speaks against religion, I'm going to pinch you and everyone in here. Do you understand?

Ribback: I don't have anything against any religion.

McDermott: Maybe I'm not talking to the right person. Are you the man who hired Lenny Bruce?

Ribback: Yes, I am. I'm Alan Ribback.

McDermott: Well, I don't know why you ever hired him. You've had good people here. But he mocks the pope -- and I'm speaking as a Catholic. I'm here to tell you your license is in danger. We're going to have someone here watching every show. Do you understand?

Ribback: Yes.

Anyone who has ever heard Lenny Bruce knows that his act is not an attack against any specific religious group, but against all of society's intolerance and hypocrisies. His technique is vitriolic and his manner often so free-form that it becomes a verbal stream of consciousness. But his basic message is not one of hate, but of charity, love and understanding.

"Lenny Bruce is here to talk about the phony, frightened, lying world," wrote the Chicago Tribune's will Leonard less than a week before Lenny's arrest. And Richard Christiansen, in the Chicago Daily News, termed Bruce "the healthiest comic spirit of any comedian working in the United States today. His act, said Christiansen, "is right smack at the center of a true comedy that strips all prejudices and reveals man's inhumanity to man."

Nor do all Catholics fail to understand. Writing on the subject of Bruce and his vocabulary, Professor John Logan of the University of Notre Dame stated: "I find him a brilliant and inventive moralist in the great tradition of comic satire -- Aristophanes, Chaucer, Joyce. If his use of four-letter words constitutes obscenity, then those satirists were also obscene."

The point, as we have previously stated, is not whether any one of us agrees with all, or any part, of what Bruce has to say, but whether a free society can long remain free if we suppress the expression of all ideas that are objectionable to a few or to many.

The charge against Lenny Bruce was obscenity, but his actual "crime" seems to have been speaking out too openly on certain negative aspects of organized religion. The charge against Playboy is obscenity, also.

The NODL

In the February issue, we commented on the National Organization for Decent Literature, which headquarters in Chicago. The NODL prepares a monthly list of "disapproved" books and magazines that is supposed to be a guide for Catholic youth, but is often used as a weapon for adult censorship. Local organizations -- sometimes openly Catholic and sometimes seeming to represent a cross section of the community, while actually under Catholic control -- use the NODL black list to suppress reading matter in their community through the action of sympathetic officials or through the intimidation of local book and magazine dealers through threat of boycott or other coercion.

Exactly this sort of extra legal coercive action was suggested by Illinois' Assistant State's Attorney James R. Thompson, in a newspaper story reporting on the Playboy arrest. He suggested: "(I) Citizens report to the State's Attorney's office books and magazines suspected of being obscene. (2) Formation of community or neighborhood organizations to meet with merchants who sell objectionable material. (3) Boycotting of stores which sell obscene literature."

The effect of such action is to set up citizen-censorship groups for the specific purpose of suppressing the reading matter of their fellow citizens, rather than allowing each individual to make up his or her own mind about what to read.

In an editorial entitled "The Harm Good People Do," in the October 1956 issue of Harper's Magazine, Editor John Fischer wrote: "A little band of Catholics is now conducting a shocking attack on the rights of their fellow citizens. They are engaged in an un-American activity which is as flagrant as anything the Communist party ever attempted -- and which is, in fact, very similar to Communist tactics. They are harming their country, their Church, and the cause of freedom.

"Their campaign is particularly dangerous because few people realize what they are up to. It can hurt you -- indeed, it already has -- without your knowing it. It is spreading rapidly but quietly: and so far no effective steps have been taken to halt it.

"Even the members of this organization probably do not recognize the damage they are doing. They are well-meaning people, acting from deeply moral impulses. They are trying, in a misguided way, to cope with a real national problem, and presumably they think of themselves as patriots and servants of the Lord. Perhaps a majority of Americans, of all faiths, would sympathize with their motives -- though not with their methods.

"They do not. of course, speak for all Catholics. On the contrary, they are defying the warnings of some of their Church's most respected teachers and theologians. The Catholic Church as a whole certainly cannot be blamed for their actions, any more than it could be held responsible a generation ago for the political operations of Father Coughlin.

"This group calls itself the National Organization for Decent Literature. Its headquarters are in Chicago: its director is the Very Reverend Monsignor Thomas Fitzgerald. Its main purpose is to make it impossible for anybody to buy books and other publications which it does not like. Among them are the works of some of the most distinguished authors now alive -- for example, winners of the Nobel Prize, the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award.

"Its chief method is to put pressure on newsdealers, drugstores, and booksellers, to force them to remove from their stocks every item on the NODL black list. Included on this list are reprint editions of books by Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner, John Dos Passos, George Orwell, John O'Hara, Paul Hyde Bonner, Emile Zola, Arthur Koestler and Joyce Cary. [The current list also includes Serenade by James M. Cain, Mister Roberts by Thomas Heggen, From Here to Eternity by James Jones, What Makes Sammy Run by Budd Schulberg, The Young Lions by Irwin Shaw, Native Son by Richard Wright and The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger.] In some places -- notably Detroit, Peoria and the suburbs of Boston -- the organization has enlisted the local police to threaten booksellers who are slow to 'co-operate.'

"This campaign of intimidation has no legal basis. The books so listed have not been banned from the mails, and in the overwhelming majority of the cases no legal charges have ever been [sustained] against them.... Its chosen weapons are boycott and literary lynching.

"For example, early last year committees of laymen from Catholic churches in the four northern counties of New Jersey -- Union, Hudson, Essex and Bergen -- began to call on local merchants. These teams were armed with the NODL lists. They offered 'certificates,' to be renewed each month, to those storekeepers who would agree to remove from sale all of the listed publications. To enforce their demands, they warned the merchants that their parishioners would be advised to patronize only those stores displaying a certificate.

"Contact, a bulletin published by the Sacred Heart Parish Societies of Orange, New Jersey, listed 14 merchants in its March 1955 issue. 'The following stores,' it said, 'have agreed to co-operate with the Parish Decency Committee in not displaying or selling literature disapproved by the National Organization for Decent Literature.... Please patronize these stores only. They may be identified by the certificate which is for one month only.'

"Such tactics are highly effective.... The Archdiocesan Council of Catholic Men in St. Louis [reported] that it had 'obtained the consent of about one third of the store owners approached in a campaign to ask merchants to submit to voluntary screening....'

"The Detroit NODL states that its list is 'not intended as a restrictive list for adults' -- though it does not explain how adults could purchase the books if merchants have been persuaded not to stock them.

"But the motives of these zealous people are not the issue. The real issue is whether any private group -- however well-meaning -- has a right to dictate what other people may read.

"Clearly any church, or any subgroup within a church, has a right to advise its own members about their reading matter. Clearly, too, anybody has a right to try to persuade other people to read or to refrain from reading anything he sees fit. The National Organization for Decent Literature, however, goes much further. Its campaign is not aimed at Catholics alone, and it is not attempting to persuade readers to follow its views. It is compelling readers, of all faiths, to bow to its dislikes, by denying them a free choice in what they buy.

"This principle is of course unacceptable to Catholics -- as it is to all Americans -- if they take the trouble to think about it for a moment. How would Catholics react if, say, a group of Jewish laymen were to threaten merchants with boycott unless they banned from their shops all publications which referred to the divinity of Christ? Some religious denominations believe that gambling is immoral; most Catholics do not, and many of their parishes raise considerable sums by means of bingo games and raffles. What if some Protestant sect were to try to clean out of the stores all publications which spoke tolerantly of gambling, and to boycott every merchant who bought a raffle ticket?"

The CDL

Catholic censorship is implemented at the local community level by an organization called Citizens for Decent Literature. It is a Catholic lay organization, though it gains its acceptance in some communities by appearing to be a civic group with no specific religious affiliation.

The Californian reported recently on CDL censorship activity in its state: "In California, where the campaign against 'obscene' literature has taken on the aura of a respectable community project, the tide has been swung by a group called Citizens for Decent Literature, whose national chairman admitted publicly that his organization is conducting 'a religious crusade.' Nevertheless, CDL was able to induce the San Francisco News-Call Bulletin to carry on a week-long campaign against 'smut,' in which quotes from CDL were featured prominently. For example, CDL's chairman, Charles H. Keating, Jr., billed as a former All-American swimming champion, was quoted at the beginning of the series in a statement that San Francisco is the 'smut capital' of the nation. What readers of the News-Call could not have known was that Keating has made this statement in every city in which his organization has carried on its 'religious crusade.'

"Actually, the CDL is only a front group for a larger organization called the National Organization for Decent Literature. The NODL uses groups like CDL and the Legion for Decency to infiltrate communities under the guise of nonsectarian activity and independence from a list of banned books published by NODL. The reason is that NODL has been stamped as a Catholic organization that has tried to have books called unfit for Catholics to read banned for persons of all other religious denominations, too. This has resulted in widespread opposition to NODL, which has therefore been forced to use groups in communities that go by different names. These groups will deny they are connected with NODL, but they use NODL's banned-books list and they parrot NODL's philosophy.

"For example, listen to CDL's Charles Keating testifying before the House Subcommittee on Postal Operations: '... The rot they peddle ... causes premarital intercourse, perversion, masturbation in boys, wantonness in girls, and weakens the morality of all it contacts.... Attention is given to sensationalists such as Kinsey, who draw sweeping conclusions from a handful of selected subjects and defraud the public by calling their meanderings a scientific study -- and Eberhard and Phyllis Kronhausen who, finding fellow travelers in erstwhile respectable media, manage to disseminate, directly and indirectly, their absurd and dirty bleatings and pagan ideas.... It seems strange to me that we credit -- I should say that our mass media credit -- the unestablished generalities of a few so-called experts, but ignore the over-whelming testimony of the true experts like so many of your previously testifying witnesses, of men like Pitirim Sorokin, J. Edgar Hoover.... One might say, even the laws, the words of God himself are ignored.

" 'So now you see that I claim to speak for most of our American citizens. I come by this claim as a member of Citizens for Decent Literature, having in the past four years traveled extensively giving hundreds of speeches. Through our CDL office, we receive and answer about 300 letters a month, all from indignant citizens ... who want, as I do, this demoralizing traffic in filth stopped now.

" 'Citizens for Decent Literature has been successful in all areas where it has been militant in the first phase of its program. There has been the usual opposition by extremists such as the persistent, illogical, comical and theatrical -- but legalistically skilled -- activities of certain "civil liberties" groups.... They constantly -- particularly the California collections -- impose censorship by threats, bullying, intimidations, and smears ... these elements and those foul producers and salesmen of this depravity ... take these slick magazines with their emphasis on seductively posed nude females. To those who say: "But whom do they effect and how?" -- I reply: Why disbelieve the countless clergymen, who, from their flocks, know these magazines cause masturbation and other immoral behavior among boys.

" 'The Kronhausens and their ilk I think deliberately appeal to the mass audience by inclusions in their works of the most rank obscenities imaginable.... It seems to me that the basic contention of these people is that guilt feelings are the result of moral restrictions, and that the remedy lies in abandoning the restrictions. For example, a boy who is in the habit of masturbation would undoubtedly suffer a depression and moodiness and guilt feelings which the Kronhausens would remove, not by stopping his habit or eliminating his habit of masturbation, which is a difficult process perhaps, but by convincing the boy that if masturbate he must, then go to it, but get rid of the puritanical and inbred fanatical religious attitudes which cause him to think of this as being something sinful.

" 'We get a lot of mail indicating people who have picked these (nudist) magazines up and find them filled with semen when boys masturbate on the pictures, and so forth. Nothing else could be expected.

" 'In these days, speaking of masturbation, when you run into that problem, I just mention it casually and take for granted that most people think that it is a very bad thing and very dangerous to the health and moral welfare, physical and mental, of the people who have the habit. But we had a psychiatrist on the stand in Cincinnati recently for the defense, who said, sure, these magazines stimulate the average person to sexual activity, but it would be sexual activity which would have a legitimate outlet. The prosecutor said to him, "Doctor, what is a legitimate or socially acceptable outlet for an 18-year-old unmarried boy?" The doctor answered, "Masturbation." When you are met with that kind of situation, you begin to wonder.' "

When you are met with that kind of wild-eyed sexual fanaticism, on the part of the chairman of CDL and the chief proponent of censorship in the U. S. today, you do, indeed, begin to wonder.

The Californian felt obliged to observe: "Keating's testimony is full of typical revelations of this type of mind. Premarital sexual intercourse is evil. Kinsey and other scientists are 'fellow travelers,' and purveyors of filth in disguise. Scientists like Kinsey and the Kronhausens are not the true authorities; the true authorities on sex are men like J. Edgar Hoover. Anyone who sells or reads sexy literature is a 'pagan' defying the law of God. They have the support of 'civil liberties' groups [placed in quotations to indicate contempt], and California 'collections' [as if to say, the groups of wild-living people in that state]. Masturbation is so obviously immoral that it is to be taken for granted that most people think it is immoral."

Keating's statements remind us of the observations made by Dr. Benjamin Karpman, Chief Psychotherapist of St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, D.C., on the neurosis known as pornophilia -- the obsessive and excessive interest in pornographic materials:

"This interest in obscenity -- pornophilia -- may take another direction. It may be covered up by a reaction formation. The interest may be denied by bitter opposition to all forms of obscenity, the same as a condemnation and attack against homosexuals can cover up latent or unconscious interest in it; that is, it may cover up latent homosexuality. Crusading against obscenity has an unconscious interest at its base. The interest is negatively displaced in consciousness."

Not every censor is neurotically obsessed with sex -- some good people become involved in censorship campaigns because of religious or moral convictions and a lack of understanding of what censorship really involves, and some public officials become outspoken advocates of censorship because they believe it will be to their political advantage. But Keating's rantings are almost classic as he projects his own sick view of sex and obscenity onto the rest of society.

The Californian continued: "It would appear that because this mind reveals such deep fanaticism, a throwback to Cotton Mather and the reign of the Puritans in America, that there would be widespread community opposition to him and groups like CDL. Instead, headline-seeking newspapers play up Keating's distorted presentations without adequate quotations revealing his fanaticism, and thus he is able to gain tremendous support and little opposition. It worked precisely that way in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

"Perhaps there would be opposition if information were made available to show that Keating and CDL, like other such groups, are only fronts for the NODL; for there is opposition to NODL, even among Catholics themselves. But with groups like CDL posing as nonsectarian organizations, religious fanaticism is too often left out of the picture and communities receive the impression that the crusade is civic, rather than religious. Even when Keating admits publicly, as he did in San Francisco, that his is a 'religious crusade,' the newspapers -- hence the community -- ignore it. Yet, Keating, CDL, and other such groups, are Catholics working [in conjunction with] NODL and using NODL's banned-books list.... They are all part of the same organization -- the NODL, which was established in 1938 by the Catholic Bishops of the United States as a watchdog committee for the Roman Catholic Church. In some communities, its branches are admittedly Catholic, and in others they operate on an inter-religious basis. They all use the banned-books list of NODL, however -- a list which is drawn up ... in conformance with Catholic religious beliefs and Catholic moral codes. The purpose of this list and of the NODL, according to a statement of the Bishops' Episcopal Committee, is 'to organize and set in motion the moral forces of the entire country ... against the lascivious type of literature which threatens moral, social and national life' ... to evaluate [this] literature ... the NODL uses a reading committee of mothers of the Roman Catholic faith in the Chicago area....

"Despite the obvious fanaticism of those who would draw up such a list, the NODL has been amazingly successful in putting its banned-books list into effect on a vast scale. Local NODL-organized groups have been able to boycott newsstand dealers and bookstores into carrying only titles not on the banned list. In some communities they have things so well-organized that no dealer will carry anything on the list and has even agreed to do this without examining the books or the list in advance. In many cases, police, prosecuting attorneys, and military commanders on Army posts have issued instructions or orders that no books or magazines on the NODL list will be sold within their jurisdiction.

"An example of how the NODL works may be taken from the town of Springfield, Vermont. There, a civic leader named Mrs. Henry Ferguson, president of Springfield Catholic Women, organized an 'Inter-Denominational Church Group' to rid local newsstands and bookstores of vulgar comic books. Since she was able to convince other civic leaders that the group would be composed of 12 church denominations, there was widespread support for her campaign. Everyone was in favor of getting vulgar comic books out of the hands of children. The newsstand dealers offered little opposition. With this backing, then, Mrs. Ferguson's group began policing the newsstands, asking the dealers to remove objectionable comic books; and the dealers complied.

"Soon the dealers discovered, however, that Mrs. Ferguson's group was not going to stop with comic books. Women from the group began asking the dealers to remove certain paperback books which they said were getting into the hands of children. Again the cry, 'Protect our children,' was the magic wand in Springfield. Community backing was won and the dealers were forced to begin removing the more lurid paperback books. Again there was no objection, because this kind of book did not sell well in Springfield anyway. But then came the finale.

"Having experienced no opposition up to this point, Mrs. Ferguson introduced to her 'Inter-Denominational Church Group' a list of banned books and magazines published by the NODL in Chicago. She supplied all of her members with the list and asked them to call on the merchants, check their shelves by the list, and ask them to remove any books and magazines on it. At this, the merchants balked. Some of their best-selling paperback books were on the list: James Jones' From Here to Eternity, Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, Caldwell's God's Little Acre. Some of their best-selling magazines -- Playboy, for example -- were on the list. So, the merchants balked.

"But by this time, Mrs. Ferguson had community sentiment behind her. She was able to get a town ordinance enacted against 'obscene' literature. This ordinance was the last wedge she had been waiting for. Now, she was able to threaten the merchants with prosecution. Therefore, they began to yield to Mrs. Ferguson and her group, first removing the books which might possibly subject them to prosecution under the town ordinance. Finally, when all of these were gone and the merchants were down to nothing but books and magazines which could not be prosecuted under any ordinance or law enacted anywhere in the United States, a showdown came. Some of the more stouthearted merchants refused to yield any further.

"Mrs. Ferguson met this opposition with the final tactic: boycott. She and her women spread the word through the community that any merchant not cooperating with her group should be boycotted by the community. Friends should be advised not to deal with that merchant. Faced with this loss of business, the merchants yielded to the last indignity. They permitted Mrs. Ferguson and her women to design a plaque stating that a given store had been inspected by the Springfield Church Group and was found not to have any objectional literature in it, and to hang this plaque in a prominent place in all stores in Springfield selling literature.

"Today, in the town of Springfield, you will find one of these plaques displayed by every newsstand and bookstore. You will not find Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, or Caldwell's God's Little Acre, or Playboy magazine. They are all banned from Springfield -- banned according to a list published by one segment of the Catholic Church."

The CDL in Chicago

In Chicago, home of the NODL, the CDL functions in the guise of an interdenominational organization. The Chicago Citizens for Decent Literature is headed by a Catholic priest, Father Lawler, and its book-burning activities over the past year have been, if anything, even more flagrant and oppressive than those of the CDL in California. And that is easily understood, for here in Chicago Catholic censors have a sympathetic administration to implement their publishing purges.

The Catholic CDL censorship campaign enjoys the cooperation of the Catholic-dominated Corporation Counsel's office, which is responsible to a Catholic mayor, abetted by a predominantly Catholic police force, with cases usually tried before Catholic judges. Under such circumstances, it is a tremendous tribute to Chicago officialdom that democratic justice triumphs as often as it does -- evidence that a significant number of this community's Catholic administrators, legislators, judges and police officers truly understand the importance of keeping separate their governmental and religious obligations.

On several occasions over the past few months, however, incidents involving freedom of administrative action (IPAC's birth-control program), freedom of speech (Lenny Bruce), and freedom of the press (Playboy), have suggested that sometimes the appropriate concerns of church and state become confused in the City of Chicago.

The CDL seems to have been particularly successful in overriding whatever scruples Chicago officials have against permitting religious influences to interfere with the lawful rights of men in a free society. With the aid of Chicago's Corporation Counsel, they have ridden roughshod over book and magazine dealers throughout the city. But, thank heaven, the Constitutional freedom of expression is reasserted when these cases are brought to court. As a result, the Citizens for Decent Literature has had the frustrating experience of achieving a great many arrests and very few convictions -- even in the lower courts. So much so that, immediately prior to the Playboy arrest, the CDL struck out viciously at its own staunchest ally, the Chicago Corporation Counsel office, vilifying one of its top prosecutors for not being more successful in obtaining convictions.

This story in the June 1st issue of the weekly Negro newspaper, The New Crusader, offers significant background on the Chicago CDL just one week before the Playboy arrest on June 4th:

"The powerful wrath of a vicious book-burning organization, masquerading under the title of Citizens League for Decent Literature, was felt last week when the ax fell on Leonard Kaplan, attorney for the Fifth Ward Regular Democratic Organization. Kaplan, a 10-year veteran prosecutor in the city's Corporation Counsel office, announced his retirement and decision to enter private practice when the Citizen's League began bombarding key city officials with letters critical of his handling of prosecutions in certain obscenity cases.

"The League, largely composed of Victorian housewives, sends out teams of women to investigate newsstands, counters and bookstores to ferret out reading matter it deems in poor taste for Chicagoans. Led by a Catholic priest, Father Lawler, the group is meeting with growing resistance to its censorship efforts. Two judges of the Municipal Court, who declined to be named, pointed to the attack on Kaplan as a key factor in the group's loss of support.

"Attorney Kaplan, who had prosecuted several of the obscenity cases successfully, had the recent misfortune of losing a jury trial involving one of the League's cases. Although he enjoys a splendid reputation as a lawyer, and although impartial court observers attested to his good showing, the League's members began writing poison-pen letters to Mayor Daley and Corporation Counsel John Melaniphy in which Kaplan was accused of 'selling out' and not putting forth his best efforts.

"When the well-liked lawyer was shown the letters, he expressed great shock, inasmuch as the League had been hailing him as their hero up till then.

"He observed that when a group elects to deny one the right of citizens, they care little about denying anyone's right. One example cited concerned a cigar store owned by an aged widow. Finding a paperback book on their banned list, they secured the arrest of the old lady and shortly thereafter prevailed upon the City Clerk's office to revoke her cigarette license. Happily, Mayor Daley heard of the vicious incident and restored the license.

"Father Lawler, a one-man terror, is a veteran in campaigns to adjust folks' morals to suit his own. Other Catholic priests disagree with his tactics, but dare not publicly oppose him. One of Law-let's recent blitzes brought tears to the eyes of many of the area's young ladies, when he inspected the dresses of all girls attending proms of Catholic high schools and colleges. If the gown was not to the priest's liking, the guest was ejected. He advocated high collars and long, Victorian-style formals.

"The campaign to purify dresses also included a drive to require coed's daily attire to be four inches below their knees. After resistance to Lawler's drive grew, he switched to his present literature cleanup."

Whether CDL's accusation to the Mayor, the Corporation Counsel, and others, just prior to the Playboy arrest, charging that a member of the Corporation Counsel's legal staff was guilty of "selling out" and not putting forth his best effort in a previous obscenity case, was responsible for the move against us as a concession to Lawler, we do not know. We do know, however, that Lawler and his Citizens for Decent Literature had been attempting to get Melaniphy to take action against Playboy for many months, personally bringing each new issue to his attention with a request for prosecution.

This substantiates -- finally and conclusively -- that it was not the Jayne Mansfield pictorial feature in the June issue that initiated the attempt at censorship, but the continuing editorial content of the magazine. It makes clear that the question here involved is not simply the right to publish "all the nudes that's fit to print," as one punster once claimed of Playboy, but the right to express personal editorial opinion, as we have been doing over the past dozen months in The Playboy Philosophy, even though some of the ideas put forth may not receive popular acceptance in all quarters of our society.

The CDL and Playboy

We have met Father Lawler on a couple of occasions in the ten years since we began publishing Playboy. The first time was at our request; the second was at his. He's a relatively young man -- about our own age, we would judge -- handsome, bright, and disarmingly personable.

Our first meeting came in the early years of Playboy's young life. We had just begun to go after advertising in a serious way and were running a series of full-page ads in Advertising Age, illustrated by LeRoy Neiman and telling the story, through statistics, of Playboy's quality readership. We received word from an Ad Age exec that a complaint had been lodged with them by a priest, who objected to their accepting advertising from us. The Ad Age exec was polite, but firm, in his position that they must accept all legitimate advertising from responsible companies. That resolved the immediate problem, but we decided a personal meeting with Father Lawler might serve some useful purpose, since, at best, we might convince him that we were sincerely dedicated in our attempt to make Playboy the best men's magazine in the nation (even then our dreams were lofty); and, at the very least, a personal meeting should convince him that we were not, as we thought he might suspect, the Devil incarnate.

We called him and arranged to meet for dinner. It was a most warm and cordial meeting, though we were somewhat distressed to learn that he was presently involved in a poison-pen campaign in which Catholic grade-school children were writing letters to a local radio station, as a class assignment, attacking the then most popular disc jockey in Chicago, because, as Lawler explained it, the radio personality had a large juvenile following and much of his repartee was sexually oriented and too "blue" for the innocent ears of children. Lawler swore that he would be successful in driving the disc jockey off the air, which he never accomplished, though he did manage to give the performer a rather bad time of it for a while. We left that dinner-meeting feeling rather sorry for the disc jockey, but convinced that we had made a friend -- if not a convert -- who respected our right to a point of view that differed from his own.

It was several years before we heard from Father Lawler again. He asked us to come and see him at his office and we complied. We observed, with some pride, that our promises and predictions regarding the future of Playboy had, in the intervening years, come to pass. He conceded that they had and seemed to feel we were publishing quite a good magazine, though he expressed the wish that we would get a bit more clothing on our Playmate of the Month. What he really wanted to see us about, he explained, was a number of shoddy paperback books that were currently being produced by fly-by-night publishers in and around Chicago. We told him what little we knew about them -- which was precious little -- and he carried on a bit about the growing "smut market" and its effect upon children, emphasizing his point by pulling from the brief case he carried with him some decks of playing cards that offered 52 varieties of photographic hard-core pornography to the set. We thought he went through these with just a bit too much enthusiasm, while emphasizing the point of "smut's" evil influence on our youth, but we kept that thought to ourselves and departed as cordially as before.

We remembered these two meetings with Father Lawler when we read about his more recent activities as guardian of the public morals and head of the Chicago CDL, and we couldn't help remembering, as we had after reading the Keating testimony, what Dr. Benjamin Karpman had had to say about a negatively displaced obsession with obscenity -- that crusading against sex is often an unconscious cover-up for an interest in the subject.

Our arrest -- on the charge of "publishing and distributing obscene material" -- was a surprise, to say the least. It was a surprise, because we knew that Playboy wasn't obscene, and we had enough respect for Corporation Counsel John Melaniphy's legal acumen to be convinced that he knew it, too. Nevertheless, we were arrested -- in our home -- by not one, but four armed officers of the law. And the television cameras, having previously been cued by the cops, were there to record the event, with the press and radio waiting for us at the police station when we were booked.

During our brief visit to headquarters to post bail, we engaged in friendly conversation with some of the local constabulary and one of the officers offered the information that the man behind the arrest was Father Lawler. Lawler had been there often during the past few months, he said, and always with copies of Playboy. We found ourself wondering what had happened to those decks of pornographic playing cards.

Censorship and the Press

The day after the arrest we received an anonymous tip that, before the warrant was issued, the CDL had sought and received promises of cooperation from the Catholic head of a local radio station and a Catholic editor of one of Chicago's daily newspapers: The station was to begin an immediate, daily anti-smut campaign, in conjunction with CDL, and if the Corporation Counsel arranged our arrest, the newspaper editor allegedly promised to give the story maximum coverage with a strong anti-Playboy slant.

Thus, a conspiracy of censorship was apparently entered into between a phony nonsectarian "citizens" league, the city prosecutor, the manager of a local radio station and the editor of a Chicago newspaper -- all representing the viewpoint of a single religious denomination.

We know the editor personally and consider him to be one of the best newspapermen in the city; we frankly doubted, therefore, that the rumor was true. But we remembered that in San Francisco, one of the CDL's preliminary tactical maneuvers was to obtain, in advance, a local newspaper's commitment to actively cooperate in the censorship drive. The newspaper proved so "cooperative" that more liberal forces in the city called it "hysterical," "irresponsible," and a good deal worse.

Morris Lowenthal, prominent San Francisco attorney and chairman of the Freedom-to-Read Citizens' Committee stated, at a hearing to consider a new antismut bill promoted there by the CDL: "Besides the efforts of certain well-known newspapers to increase their circulation by cheap journalism, leading the band wagon in maintaining that the state laws on obscenity are obsolete and that more stringent measures are required is the largely sectarian League for Decent Literature -- a private group whose national office elsewhere in the country has been accused of illegal boycotts and coercion against booksellers and newsstands. Charles H. Keating, the national chairman of this organization, recently asserted that his group is engaged in a 'religious crusade' to enact strict censorship laws and to suppress publications deemed offensive by the League. His charges, for example, that San Francisco is a 'world center of filthy books' and 'the smuttiest in the nation' gained blaring headlines, especially in the News-Call Bulletin, which at the time was striving to increase its circulation by joining forces with Frank Coakley, the Alameda County District Attorney, in his hysterical publicity drive against 'smut.' The San Francisco Chronicle noted, however, that Keating made the same charges against every city that he has visited in the United States."

The obscenity bill was defeated in committee, but the newspaper tirade continued, and a rehearing was scheduled. At the rehearing, Lowenthal was joined by Lawrence Goldberg, attorney representing the American Jewish Conference, and both vigorously opposed the new obscenity statute. They were aided by Democratic Assemblyman Nick Petris of Alameda, who subjected those testifying for the bill to strict questioning. He got Mrs. Margaret Berry, president of the California Congress of Parents and Teachers, which had lent its support to the passage of the bill, to admit that she was not even familiar with the contents of the proposed statutes.

"I don't have to know all the technicalities," she said.

Petris explained that some measures in the bill could have drastic effects on anyone possessing material which someone else considered obscene, if they cared to turn in the possessor. Petris asked Mrs. Berry if she felt she would have the right to act as a censor if the new bill was enacted.

"If I see a book the law says is obscene, I have a right to be a censor," she said.

Finally, the assistant district attorney of Alameda County testified on behalf of D.A. Frank Coakley, who had been leading the anti-obscenity campaign in California. Under questioning, the assistant district attorney gave his definition of what is obscene: "Anything that is obscene is obscene."

The nationally respected San Francisco Chronicle published a long and thoughtful editorial evaluation of the so-called "antismut bills" and stated that they "should be decisively rejected as offensive to fundamental American ideals of freedom and to ordinary common sense.

"The measures resulted from a climate of hysteria engendered by outrageously exaggerated reports that California had become the 'smut capital' of the nation....

"The first widely extravagant attempts at legislation to discourage this imaginary assault upon the youth of the state were patently outrageous even to the authors. The bills have been subsequently amended and re-amended, but they remain vague, contradictory, excessive, in some provisions ridiculous, and in others probably unconstitutional....

"The current attempts at censorship," concluded the Chronicle, "are ridiculous in conception, inept in design, and, if permitted to prosper, must inevitably work far more harm than they could possibly cure."

The News-Call Bulletin had taken a stand favoring the CDL "antismut" campaign at the outset and despite all logic to the contrary, it stayed with that position to the bitter end, countering the Chronicle editorial with a lengthy editorial feature of its own, with the headline: "How New Law Would Fight Smut."

The Californian branded the article, "one of the most warped, distorted, inaccurate pieces of journalism ever to come out of that newspaper." In order to make the new California obscenity law seem reasonable, claimed the editor of The Californian, "the News-Call omitted all the damaging sections from discussion and twisted all those mentioned beyond recognition."

If it happened in San Francisco, it could happen in Chicago. The pattern seemed the same in both cities. If Keating and the CDL could convince the News-Call of the rightness of a pro-censorship stand, Lawler and the CDL might do the same here -- especially with an appeal to an editor with whom there was a religious empathy.

We have always considered this editor a man of considerable professional integrity and something of a Playboy fan to boot. He had offered us valuable advice when we were having problems with Show Business Illustrated and had complimented us on the over-all operation on more than one occasion. How, then, could he possibly be involved in this abortive attempt to suppress the magazine?

It was possible, we realized, that he might not see this action in the same light we did -- as an attempt, on the part of one minority group, to project its personal point of view onto the rest of the community. He might sincerely believe that the actions of both Lawler and Melaniphy were justified, for he certainly couldn't know all of the unsavory details that had come to our attention regarding CDL, and might not recognize any of the church-state implications in the arrest. For this editor, and for a great many others, our arrest might truly seem to be just a matter of those Jayne Mansfield nudes in the June issue -- and nothing else. And without any special insight into either the psychological or legal implications, the idea of "obscenity" might be just as repugnant to him as the idea of censorship is to us.

We arranged a meeting with the editor to learn what we could about his part in the arrest; he was cordial, but he refused to discuss the matter. The answer came soon enough, however, in the pages of his newspaper, Chicago's American. The original reporting of the arrest was about the same in all four Chicago dailies, except that it received a little more space in the American. But two days after the arrest, when the other papers had dropped the story, except for an occasional, humorous quip in the columns, the American was just getting warmed up.

Under the headline, "U. S. Studies Playboy Case, May Prosecute," the paper announced that we faced "possible Federal action in connection with the magazine's June issue." The story went on to say that the Chicago postmaster had mailed a copy of the magazine to the Post Office department in Washington for an opinion on whether or not it was "obscene." We were too busy reading the list of dire penalties that would befall the publisher if it was, to speculate long on who might have put the local postmaster up to this stunt. But no one had to hold his breath very long waiting for the word from Washington, because -- though the newspaper story made it seem all very serious -- anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of current obscenity law in America knew that the June issue of Playboy did not even begin to approach the obscene.

The American also quoted the Chicago postmaster as saying, "The next issue is going to get a much closer look before it is sent through the mails. If it appears that there is any obscenity, the magazine will be held from the mails until I can obtain an opinion from Washington." No one bothered to point out in this "news" story that any such action on the part of the local postmaster would be illegal, or to consider what a frightening power would be placed in the hands of an appointed civil servant if he could, indeed, withhold from the mails any periodical he considered objectionable, until he was able to "obtain an opinion from Washington."

What if all the copies of Chicago's American that are delivered by Uncle Sam were unexpectedly "held from the mails," while awaiting word from another Government official in Washington? Even if the word that came back was favorable, the newspaper would be, by then, as worthless as -- well, as yesterday's newspaper.

The U. S. courts have made it abundantly clear that the Post Office's duty is the efficient delivery of the mails, not the censoring of them. And if a postal official were ever to find truly obscene material being sent through the mail -- a rare occurence -- it would then become a matter for the courts, not arbitrary censorship by an administrative assistant. Do Chicago's American and the Chicago postmaster both need to be reminded that our democracy is based upon the protections of clue process of law?

The story ended with the statement: "Meanwhile, religious leaders urged community action in taking smut literature oft newsstands and out of bookstores, where it is often purchased by juveniles." And with quotes from Msgr. John M. Kelly, editor of the Catholic newspaper, New World, who said, "Literature or pictures that adversely affect the minds of adults or children are immoral, and can be presumed to hurt many. It's a far worse thing to threaten human minds and souls than to threaten human bodies," and a Protestant and a Jewish clergyman expressed related sentiments.

There were no comments from educators, sociologists, psychologists, pathologists, or psychiatrists -- i.e., no scientific evaluation of the significance and effect of obscenity on society; no comments from experts on constitutional law on the legal implications of such censorship or juridical opinion on whether or not the material in question actually fell within the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity; no comments from writers, editors or publishers on the importance of a censor-free society as a necessary environment for the survival of independent newspapers, magazines and books: no comments from the Civil Liberties Union or others concerned with the protection of free speech and press in America. Presumably none of these sources of far more pertinent comment were solicited; certainly none were published.

That same week, radio station WLS began a concentrated, daily anti-obscenity campaign.

The next Chicago's American story was headlined, "Cops Seek to Ban 'Playboy,' " which stated, "The Police Department, at the request of the Corporation Counsel's office, today began a drive to halt further sale of the June issue of Playboy magazine. Brian Kilgallon, Assistant Corporation Counsel in charge of enforcing the city's obscenity ordinances, said police throughout the city will attempt to purchase the magazine at newsstands, drug- and bookstores, and other distribution points. Warrants charging the sale of obscene matter will be sought against dealers who sell the June issue with the knowledge that the city has declared it objectionable, he said."

The newspaper did not point out to its readers that, in issuing this declaration, the Corporation Counsel was guilty of illegal intimidation of the city's magazine dealers, since the issue could not be considered legally obscene until its case had been tried in court. The point was academic, since the issue was already completely sold out, but no one bothered to mention that the fact that "the city (meaning Corporation Counsel John Melaniphy) had declared it objectionable" was not a basis for banning the magazine, since only a court of law is empowered to legally determine a question of obscenity and Playboy had yet to have its day in court.

The American went on to quote Kilgallon as saying, " 'Most people are concerned over how we can prevent this type of magazine from falling into the hands of children.' Kilgallon estimated that two out of three of the magazine's readers are under 21 years of age." We exposed, last month, the fallacious nature of that "estimate" and pointed out that this is but one more example of using a "concern" for children to justify the attempted censorship of adult reading matter.

This story concluded with the suggestion, from Assistant State's Attorney James R. Thompson, that citizens form community vigilante groups to illegally boycott retailers who display or sell books and magazines of which they do not approve.

Chicago's American completed round one of its Playboy campaign with an editorial that described the Jayne Mansfield feature and then stated: "Hefner's philosophy appears to be that the 'modern urban male' likes and even needs to look at pictures of naked, suggestively posed women; that this is a very healthy and virile way to be, and that it's practically a duty to encourage the habit -- the law should have no right to interfere.

"Our view is that mass-produced lewdness can have a weakening, damaging effect on the moral framework of a community, and that the community should have -- and use -- means of restraining it."

Bypassing the point that the American knows full well, or should know through its contact with CDL, that the photographs in the June issue of Playboy were not the actual, underlying cause of the arrest, we would point out that expert scientific opinion, which the American did not bother to seek out, refutes the notion that sex in books and magazines -- either written or pictorial -- has any such "weakening, damaging effect" on society: that a significant portion of the scientific fraternity specializing in the subject, including Drs. Kronhauseu, Ellis, Reik, Roche, Karpman, Caprio, and many others, believe that it has just the opposite effect -- acting as a healthy release for sexual tensions, inhibitions and repressions; that it is the suppression of sex rather than its open appreciation that, as history has proven all too well, can have a "damaging effect" upon society; that if society cannot enjoy an open appreciation of positively expressed heterosexual sex, as published in Playboy, it will turn to sick or antisocial sex instead -- homosexuality, sadism, masochism, fetishism and all manner of other perversions, plus the repression that produces frigidity, impotence and a variety of other neurotic ills: that these are not our opinions, but the opinions of modern science.

Moreover, the "moral framework" to which the editorial refers is not the moral framework of our entire community -- a substantial portion of that community has made Playboy the most successful publishing venture of our generation; it is, instead, the moral framework of a particular segment of our society -- a minority, portions of which give every evidence of wishing to project their personal moral views onto the rest of society, whether we want them or not.

"The actual issue here," said the Chicago's American editorial, "is how far a magazine can go in presenting this kind of display."

We disagree. The actual issue here is whether or not any segment of society has the right to suppress the opinions of the rest; whether we truly believe in our democracy; whether we are willing to grant to those with whom we do not happen to agree the full freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

It is not Playboy that considers itself above the law -- that "the law should have no right to interfere." It is the full protection of our right to equal justice under the law that we feel is jeopardized when religious sentiment promotes governmental action against us that the law itself, as clearly established by recent high-court decisions on obscenity, does not demand. (For the Corporation Counsel confirmed, according to reports in other newspapers, that he was "fully aware of the difficulty in getting a conviction in the Playboy case, in view of recent Supreme Court decisions" and unidentified spokesmen for the CDL "admitted that there was little chance of obtaining a conviction against the Playboy photos inasmuch as the Supreme Court has already ruled that the [portrayal of the nude] male or female does not constitute obscenity. But the CDL feels that it has achieved success whenever it secures the arrest of an individual, since this causes untold harm and injury.")

We make a plea for freedom, not for license -- though the latter word is used too often to describe the freedom that someone wishes to deny to others. We do not favor editorial irresponsibility. But we do request the right to edit our magazine in our own way, without extra-legal coercion or intimidation, for that particular portion of the community with whom we have managed to establish a genuine rapport.

What saddens us is not simply the American's campaign against Playboy -- and we are certain that it is sincerely inspired, for the American has displayed no Playboy prejudice in the past, having published an extremely complimentary front-page series on our success little more than a year ago -- but the fact that no daily newspaper in this city saw the church-state implications in the case; bothered to determine, through outside legal opinion, that the charge of obscenity against the June issue of Playboy was without any legal merit, or saw fit to editorialize on the grave implications in censorship -- a cause in which every citizen, and most especially every member of the fourth estate, has a vital stake.

It took a newspaper as faraway as California to seriously question the censorship aspect of the case. The Fremont News Register said, in a first-person editorial devoted to the subject: "... What we have here is a small group of self-appointed judges and 'protectors' of our morals, who feel that they must protect us from the inevitable disastrous effects of a few photographs. Why they thought these particular photographs were dangerous and the thousands of others almost exactly like them published every day in numerous other magazines were not, is still a mystery to me....

"It would seem that this is a definite attempt to censor the magazine or dictate the content of it. This, I feel, is the most dangerous phase of the whole problem, for censorship in any shape, form or degree is definitely against the fundamental principles of our democracy.

"What is even more dangerous, of course, is the seemingly increasing number of public officials who place themselves [in the position of] censors and attempt to dictate what we, the public, should read and be allowed to see.... It would seem to me that the people of Chicago would profit much more if the police department there spent more time patroling the streets and giving traffic citations rather than attempting to judge the value of magazines or any other type of literature."

No such sentiment was expressed on the editorial pages of any of Chicago's daily newspapers and not only was the question of religious prejudice never raised, Father Lawler and his Citizens for Decent Literature, who instigated the entire affair, were never even mentioned.

It took the weekly Crusader to publicly tie the CDL in with the arrest. Under the headline, "Naked Jayne Mansfield is Obscene, Says CDL," the paper stated: "Hugh Hefner, who put Chicago on the international map of sophistication, this week found that like most prophets he is a hero everywhere except in his own home town. Hefner, 37, editor and publisher of Playboy magazine and maitre de of the homes for live Bunnies, the Playboy Clubs, was arrested and jailed on charges brought by the Citizens for Decent Literature concerning photographs of busty cinema actress Miss Jayne Mansfield in the altogether.

"The Citizens for Decent Literature, a group of Victorian housewives, still smarting from the effects of a recent edition of Playboy magazine's philosophy, which hailed the Supreme Court for liberalizing obscenity tests, prevailed upon the office of John Melaniphy, city prosecutor, to secure a warrant for Hefner....

"The New Crusader has learned that more than 400 arrests of individuals have been made in the last two years, since the CDL moved into high gear in its campaign to make itself the censor of what Chicagoans can read in newspapers, [books and] magazines.

"The danger of giving in to the CDL and conforming to its edicts was expressed this week by an Indianapolis distributor. He was the only wholesaler in the community when he was visited by CDL representatives who asked that he not carry certain paperback books. He gave in and removed the books from those he distributed. Each week the list grew. Finally, it reached the point where he was told not to distribute this month's McCall's or a certain issue of Reader's Digest because the contents did not conform with the views of the CDL.

"The CDL has enlisted the air lanes also in its book-burning campaign. Radio Station WLS is broadcasting earnest appeals to its listening audience to give assistance to the Citizens for Decent Literature. The radio appeals state that the way to stop the sale of obscene material to minors is to cooperate with CDL. Actually, even though CDL professes to be after pornographers and dealers who sell to persons under the age of 16 certain matter it deems to be indecent, there is not a single case on record where the defendant is charged with the sale of merchandise to minors.

"The CDL is also active on the legislative front. House Bill 1072 has been introduced which, if passed, would entitle authorities to put bookstores out of business by permitting injunctions against them when they carry books not to the liking of the CDL."

Censorship from Jazz to Bunnies

Even if Chicago's daily newspapers failed to discern the link between CDL, the Corporation Counsel and the Playboy arrest, they should have remembered that this was not the first time the city's Catholic hierarchy had struck out at us.

In 1959 Playboy contemplated producing the world's greatest jazz festival. The city was sponsoring a Festival of the Americas that summer, in connection with the Pan-American Games, and they invited us to stage our jazz spectacular in Soldier Field as a part of the Pan-Am event. Then, after a joint press conference announcing the event, and after Playboy had signed contracts with most of the $100,000 worth of talent scheduled to appear, city officials unexpectedly withdrew the invitation and permission to use the Field.

The official explanation given was that the jazz festival might harm the cinder track to be used for the Games. Public and press reaction ranged from incredulity to indignation. Irv Kupcinet wrote, in his Chicago Sun-Times column: "Playboy is getting a nifty run-around in trying to learn the real reason its August 8-9 dates for a jazz festival in Soldier Field have been denied. 'Runaround' is an apt description, for supposedly Soldier Field's new running track is the cause of the mysterious refusal -- even though Playboy had no intention of erecting stands on the track or using it in any way. The Park District refused the festival dates 'on recommendation of the Pan-American Games Committee.' And Jack Reilly, executive director of the Pan-Am, who originally hailed Playboy for bringing the jazz festival to Our Town, countered with, 'It's the Park District's baby -- they have complete jurisdiction over Soldier Field, not us.' "

Chicago's American stated: "Everyone is passing the buck on the Playboy magazine jazz festival, once scheduled for Soldier Field.... The magazine had scheduled the jazz festival for August 8-9, in advance of the Pan-American Games. Playboy, as its readers know, is an authority on American jazz. But it is also, as practically everybody knows, an authority on the female form.

"Along with its articles on modern music and foreign cars, Playboy features color photos of lush young ladies, wearing dazzling smiles, maybe a pair of shoes and little or nothing else. It's that which has injected a sour note into the jazz festival plans. It's more or less an open secret that the reason the Park District and the Pan-American Committee hedged on letting Playboy use Soldier Field was pressure from those who disapprove of the magazine's reputation.

"James Gately. Park District president, said the matter is out of his hands and is up to the Pan-American Committee. Victor Perlmutter, Pan-American Festival Committee president, subsidiary of the Games committee which is arranging various cultural events in connection with the Games, said: 'As far as I'm concerned, I'm in favor of the jazz festival. I think it would be a fine contribution.' "

The man behind the city officials' sudden reversal was the Very Reverend Msgr. John M. Kelly, editor of the Catholic New World, who the American more recently quoted on the subject of obscenity. Msgr. Kelly admitted that it was he who called Playboy's "reputation" to the attention of the Park District, the Pan-American Games Committee and the mayor. He told the American: "Playboy is not a fit sponsor for such an event. The quality of the magazine is such, in my opinion, that it should not share in the sponsorship of any part of the Pan-American Festival."

The Sun-Times published a letter from reader Joan Gallagher, who said: "The sordid efforts of both the Chicago Park District and the Pan-American Games Committee to keep the Playboy magazine Jazz Festival out of Soldier Field are among this year's most disgusting events.

"It is unfortunate that in a city that begs for cultural events, jazz cannot find a home. The Playboy Jazz Festival promised to be one of the major cultural events in this city's recent history. It is testimony to the spinelessness of our administrators that the festival could not be held as planned, as a part of the Festival of the Americas.

"Jazz speaks well for America, but Chicago doesn't speak well for jazz. I know that I am among the many jazz fans who hope that the festival will find a home here, despite the Park District and the Pan-American Committee."

The North Loop News editorialized: "The Pan-American Games scheduled for Chicago this summer deserve to be a flop if the sponsors [ignore] the principles of sportsmanship and feel free to break their solemn word at will. Regardless of the merits of their stand, which is not necessarily tenable, officials of the Games told Playboy magazine that it could have the use of Soldier Field for its Jazz Festival August 7, 8 and 9. Now they are backing out. The reasons they give are vague, but it now appears that the pressure is coming from sources that object to a sponsorship of the festival by Playboy magazine. This sort of pressure is dangerous, and the present indication that Pan-Am officials may bow to it is no credit to them."

The Pan-American Games and the Festival of the Americas were a flop.

Msgr. Kelly announced that he would continue to oppose Playboy's sponsorship of a jazz festival anywhere in the city. But we produced the event just the same -- in the Chicago Stadium -- and it turned out to be the most spectacular and successful jazz show ever presented anywhere in the world. All of the jazz greats were there -- from the big bands of Kenton, Ellington and Basic, and the swinging combos of Dave Brubeck, Oscar Peterson, Miles Davis and Dizzy Gillespie, to the vocal stylings of June Christie, Chris Connor, Lambert, Hendricks and Ross, the Four Freshmen, Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported: "Some 19,000 Chicagoans packed the Chicago Stadium to pay a thundering homage to the Great God Jazz. They came from uptown, downtown. They came in cabs, on foot, on cycles. Because of heavy traffic and a drizzling rain, they came slowly, filling the giant stadium in almost unnoticeable ripples. By the time the last clusters were seated, half-an-hour after the star-studded Playboy Jazz Festival had begun, those who had come early were already gone. And I mean gone, man, really gone! They were caught up in the wild rhythms hurled out by Count Basic's big band, which opened the four-hour concert....

"The festival, biggest ever anywhere, was attended by jazz buffs from all over the world. There were some 200 newsmen from papers and magazines all over the United States and Europe. Photographers numbered in the 50s. The National Broadcasting Company and the Armed Forces Network taped the entire concert.

"The performance was a benefit for the Chicago Urban League. Said Dr. Nathaniel Calloway, League president: 'The turnout has exceeded our fondest expectations.'

"Perhaps Leonard Feather, noted jazz critic, best summed up the spirit of the evening when he said: 'Man, it was like being born again. I never dreamed anything this big could ever happen.'

"Added Feather: 'You know, it's great to see Chicago, where so much great jazz came from, become the center of the birth of jazz on this scale. It's sort of like this is where it should have happened. And I'm glad it did.' "

Nearly 70,000 attended the festival's five performances and after it was over most of the critics and jazz buffs who made the scene agreed with Leonard Feather's conclusion: "It was the greatest weekend in the 60-year history of jazz!"

Mort Sahl, who m.c.'d the show, noting the rain on opening night that would have dampened the affair if it had been held in the open-air Soldier Field as originally scheduled, remarked to the audience: "Well, I guess this proves which side God is on."

Six months later, Playboy opened its first key club. And, once again, Chicago officialdom became officious. Although Chicago had had key clubs for 25 years, the week we launched the first Playboy Club, Corporation Counsel John Melaniphy announced that key clubs were illegal.

There wasn't any law that said so, but Mr. Melaniphy made the announcement just the same. We weren't about to try building an international key-dub operation with that kind of cloud hanging over us, so we took the matter to court and won a decision stating that The Playboy Club was legal and proper. Melaniphy appealed the decision and we won again in the Court of Appeals. Three years later, we find ourselves back in court with the same Corporation Counsel -- this time Melaniphy contends that the June issue of the magazine is illegal.

Chicago isn't the only major city in the U. S. where church and state are still associated in an unholy alliance. In New York, where the only ground for divorce is adultery, and where a judge recently ruled that a child born in wedlock as the result of artificial insemination is illegitimate, Playboy has had to fight its key-club battle all over again. The SLA Liquor Scandal has been only one part of our multiple problems with New York officialdom since opening a Playboy Club in Manhattan last December. The State Liquor Authority announced, just as Melaniphy had, that the New York Playboy could not be a for-members-only key club, although the pertinent laws of the state are almost identical to those in Illinois. We took the case to court a third time, and won the same point -- already confirmed twice in Illinois -- once again; the SLA is appealing the decision.

Even more serious, Catholic Commissioner Bernard O'Connell refused to grant The Playboy Club a cabaret license, without which the Club is unable to offer patrons any entertainment, other than background music and the Bunnies. This wasn't a matter of official corruption, as we faced when first applying to the SLA for a liquor license. Commissioner O'Connell is an honest man who is guilty only of allowing his personal religious convictions to influence his administrative decisions. O'Connell is opposed to The Playboy Club in concept, because of its association with the magazine -- in the same way that Melaniphy was opposed to it in Chicago (although the Playboy Clubs have proven to be the biggest convention attractions of any night spot in either city), as Msgr. Kelly opposed the Playboy Jazz Festival and the unofficial representatives of the St. Louis Archdiocese opposed our syndicated television variety show, Playboy's Penthouse, forcing it off the air in that city at midseason.

Commissioner O'Connell was opposed to The Playboy Club before he knew anything about it or had ever held an official hearing on granting us a cabaret license. Prior to the hearing, O'Connell called a friend -- an honest member of the new State Liquor Authority -- and voiced his negative feelings about Playboy and the fact that the SLA was, at that point, planning on issuing a liquor license to the Club. O'Connell was especially concerned, he said, about the costuming of the Bunnies. The SLA board member laughed and said: "Don't be an old woman, Bernie. My daughter goes to the public beach wearing less than those girls at The Playboy Club."

The commissioner held his official hearing, though he did not personally attend it, and then issued a statement refusing The Playboy Club a cabaret license. The reasons he gave were: (1) that The Playboy Club was a fraud, in that it held itself out to be a key club, whereas the SLA, at that point, was insisting that it had to be open to the general public without any payment of a key fee -- a matter that has since been decided in our favor in the court; (2) the Bunnies "mingled" with the customers, which was against New York law -- though the only "mingling" allowed in the New York Club is the serving of food and drink and the mingling referred to in the law refers to B-girls, who sit and drink with the customers: and (3) he disapproved of the Bunnies' costuming -- although a number of waitresses in other New York clubs wear similar abbreviated costumes and the showgirls at the Latin Quarter wear a great deal less -- and Bunnies have appeared, in costume, on network television, and in photographs in family newspapers and magazines all across the country.

The Playboy Clubs are, as anyone who has ever spent any time in one knows, the most closely supervised, carefully and conscientiously run night clubs in the country. Commissioner O'Connell doesn't know this, of course, because he has never been inside one. He doesn't know, because he doesn't want to know.

We appealed the commissioner's decision to the courts and the American Civil Liberties Union entered the case as amicus curiae (friend of the court), validating the fact that more was involved here than the usual discretionary decision of an administrative official. The ACLU brief stated that O'Connell had "prejudged" and "precensored" The Playboy Club, and thus deprived us of our civil rights.

Judge Arthur G. Klein decided in favor of The Playboy Club, ruling: Commissioner O'Connell "is neither a censor nor the official custodian of the public's morals. To satisfy his personal moral code, it is not incumbent upon the petitioner to dress its female employees in middy blouses, gymnasium bloomers, turtleneck sweaters, fishermen's boots, or ankle-length overcoats." The court noted that the costume worn by the Bunnies was no more revealing than a bathing suit or a low-cut formal evening gown. The court said that while Mr. O'Connell might not like certain "sophisticated" cartoons and photographs displayed in the Club, it is not required to "substitute pictures of the landing of the Pilgrim Fathers or of Washington Crossing the Delaware" to satisfy the commissioner's taste.

Commissioner O'Connell refused to let the matter end there. He had the New York Corporation Counsel appeal the decision and the Court of Appeals reversed, in favor of O'Connell. And there it stands. We must now appeal the decision once again, to the highest court in New York, and the case will not be heard until the very end of the year.

In the meantime, 60,000 New York members of The Playboy Club and their guests are being deprived of entertainment to which they are entitled, the stages of three of the finest showrooms in New York remain empty, a countless number of performers are deprived of the opportunity to earn a livelihood at the Manhattan Playboy, and the Club is being deprived of more than $50,000 a month in additional revenue from showroom cover charges. All of this, plus many thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs on both Playboy's and the city's part, because a single New York official has arbitrarily allowed his personal religious prejudices to play a part in his functioning as a license commissioner.

If Commissioner O'Connell, or Corporation Counsel Melaniphy, lived in a community in which all of the citizens they serve were, by their own choosing, Catholic, there might be some justification for such actions. As things stand, however, these officials are guilty of projecting the religious-moral convictions of their own particular church group onto the rest of a society in which each one of us is supposed to be allowed, by constitutional guarantees, to make such decisions for himself.

Two Sides of the Coin

The problems that we have discussed this month are not peculiar to Catholicism only -- they are present when the followers of any faith allow their religious beliefs to override such primary considerations as the fundamental freedom of man and the right of every individual, in a free society, to practice his own religion, establish his own personal moral standards, and to speak, read, write and otherwise communicate with his fellow man without fear of censorship or illegal reprisal.

The Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, published by the American Library Association, published the following report from a member in its May issue: "Several years ago two nice young men who said they were missionaries of the Mormon Church came to the library. They told me they had looked in the catalog and seen that there were some 50 cards under Mormons and Mormonism but there was a lack of up-to-date material. They offered us a choice from a list of books, and we selected a new pictorial history, a biography or two, and some doctrinal works. A few weeks later they came with the books.... Again an interval, after which they came to see me to say that they noted the books were now cataloged and on the shelves. Now that we had these books which told the truth about their religion, undoubtedly we would like to discard other books in the library which told lies about the Mormon Church. Other libraries, they said, had been glad to have this pointed out to them.

"I answered that this certainly did seem logical at first. But I asked them (continued on page 148)Playboy Philosophy(continued from page 74) to consider my position: suppose the Christian Scientists asked us to take out medical books, and then the doctors objected to the Christian Science books. Vegetarians might want the meat-cookery books taken out and then the butchers might retaliate on the fruit-and-nut people. What would we be able to say to people who came in and asked us to remove, on the grounds that they were untrue, the very books they had just given us? The young men saw the point and were very nice about it."

Nor are we, in any sense, suggesting that the problems we have been discussing this month represent a universal Roman Catholic viewpoint. The men who take the sort of undemocratic action described herein, be they Catholic clergy or laymen, are actually enemies of their Church, whatever they may think to the contrary, for they hurt the cause of Catholicism. No religious minority in America can benefit from a reputation for intolerance or dictatorialism.

Time magazine reported, in its issue of March 29, 1963: "Catholic University in Washington, D. C., has a high aim -- 'to search out truth scientifically, to safeguard it, and to apply it' -- qualified in practice by a timid feeling that now and then some of the truth has to be suppressed. The newest case of suppression has the school's faculty in revolt and deeply worries many of the 239 Roman Catholic bishops in the U. S., who are C. U.'s guardians.

"Barred from a student lecture series at C. U. last month were four eminent Catholic intellectuals, including two of the nation's top Jesuit theologians, Fathers Gustave Weigel and John Courtney Murray; a noted Benedictine liturgical scholar, Father Godfrey Diekmann; and one of the official theologians at the Vatican Council, Germany's Father Hans Küng. To Monsignor William J. McDonald, rector of Catholic University of America, giving a forum to these scholars might seem to place his school on the liberal side in debate at the Council -- and he did not want the school to be on any side.

"By last week, six major faculty groups had backed resolutions calling on the C. U. administration to rethink its notions of academic freedom. 'Now all this is out in the open,' says one faculty man. 'The trustees cannot bypass the situation as it exists.' Rector McDonald himself gave a sign that all the protest was having a telling effect. He announced the appearance at Catholic University next month of a timely guest speaker: Augustin Cardinal Bea, a towering liberal at the Vatican Council. Bea's topic: 'Academic Research and Ecumenicism.' "

On the negative side, a pamphlet being distributed by the San Diego Catholics for Better Libraries lists some 40 authors and illustrators who "have had Communist Front affiliations and/or write against faith, morals and the American way of life," with the suggestion that all Catholics check their own libraries against the list. The book, The Last Temptation of Christ, was removed, last spring, from the Ashland, Wisconsin, public library after a Roman Catholic priest forbade his parishioners to read it on pain of mortal sin. "Furthermore," said the American Library Association Newsletter, "he forbade the parishioner who showed him the book to return it to the library, since it would be a mortal sin to make it available to others. 'I still have the book,' said Father Schneider. 'I'll have to return it to the librarian now and see that it's burned.' "

The Catholic Messenger editorialized against the book's suppression, however. Putting aside the fact that the book's author, Nikos Kazantzakis, "is held in high regard as a serious writer, and that his fictionalized interpretations of religious figures (his recently published St. Francis of Assisi, for instance) have been generally accepted as unorthodox, but reverent"; putting aside also that "precious few of the people attacking the book seem to be familiar with it" -- the Messenger pointed out that after the 31-member Arcadia (California) Council of Churches "voted overwhelmingly in favor of forcing the book out of the library, it was established that only three of the 31 members had read the book.

"These facts, as we say, we put aside. As revealing as they are, they do not touch the main issue at stake, and that is the freedom of the public at large to have access to literature that a minority find obnoxious.

"There are probably very few books on the shelves of the average public library that don't irritate some group of people. If the library were to be at the mercy of every pressure group annoyed by a given book, it seems obvious that only the most harmless, least valuable books would be available through library facilities.

"Quite clearly this is not the function of a public library. It must open its shelves to books reflecting the free interplay of ideas, and if a given book irritates a given group, that group has an easy recourse: not to read the book. What it should not be able to do, just as clearly, is to keep the rest of the public from reading it, and this is the kind of suppression that the California clergymen [and the Wisconsin priest] are trying to practice at the moment."

On the negative side, a Catholic reader misinterpreted remarks we made in the third installment of The Playboy Philosophy, drawn from a story and comments in Newsweek and Harper's, regarding a Post of the Catholic War Veterans in Hartford, Connecticut, that justified a censorship campaign they had undertaken by commenting favorably on a similar book-burning purge in Red China: "We have to hand it to the Communists ... who have launched a nationwide campaign against pornographic trash.... Should not this example provoke a similar literary cleanup in our land where the morality of our actions is gauged by service to God and not to an atheistic state?" The reader wrote to a Catholic periodical, the Brooklyn Tablet, with the suggestion that militant action be taken against us for what he considered a slur: "Incredible to equate Catholicism with communism? Well, Hugh Hefner, publisher of Playboy, in the February issue, on page 46, does just this in an attack on the Catholic War Veterans. It is worth mobilization of effort to uphold Licenses Commissioner O'Connell, who in refusing Hefner a cabaret license recently was ridiculed by some judge."

By this reader's logic, the present installment of this editorial series will be viewed by some as a general tirade against Catholicism, which it is not, of course. It is strenuous opposition to censorship and attempts at totalitarian control by a few within the Catholic religion (and everywhere else these same undemocratic tactics exist) and it is addressed to free men of good will of every religious affiliation -- Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and those of no religious affiliation at all.

Another letter was written recently by Reverend Harold J. Drexler, assistant pastor, of the Sacred Heart Church, Dubuque, Iowa, to a number of Playboy's advertisers. The letter read: "We have been concerned with certain magazines in our neighborhood stores. We have over 1200 children of school age and like to protect them from harmful reading matter. We found the Playboy magazine in our area and the managements cooperated in their regard.

"However, we noticed your large advertisement in this magazine. We were surprised that such a reputable business firm as yours would advertise in this type of magazine. We hope that you will reconsider your policy of advertising in this type of publication. It is our judgment that you are doing your firm's good name more harm than good by supporting a magazine that treats relations between man and woman as something of a game. Other advertisers whom we have written have acknowledged the soundness of our disapproval. May we hear from you?" A postscript referred to the June-issue arrest "on charges of publishing and circulating an obscene magazine."

The seemingly personal correspondence was actually a form letter sent to a majority of the advertisers in a particular issue of Playboy. We've no notion who those advertisers might be who "acknowledged the soundness of our disapproval," since advertising linage, like readership, continues to climb at an astounding rate, and we are aware of no advertising cancellations related to this letter. Here, however, are letters of response from a couple of advertisers that we do know about, because they sent us copies of their replies:

A vice-president of After Six Formals wrote, "We would like to point out to you that our relationship with Playboy is a business one and that our advertising in the publication does not constitute an endorsement of its editorial contents, any more than an advertisement in a Republican or Democratic newspaper constitutes a political endorsement.

"Playboy magazine is certainly not intended for children and neither are the products advertised therein. Our highest courts have repeatedly held that adults may not be deprived of reading what they want to read, simply on the grounds that the subject is not fit for children.

"We certainly do acknowledge the right that you are entitled to your viewpoint, but we feel sure that as a good American you will permit others to hold a dissenting viewpoint."

An executive of the top advertising agency, J. Walter Thompson Co., wrote: "Your letter dated August 6th, addressed to our client, Prince Matchabelli, Inc., has come to my attention. I would like to take this opportunity to share with you some of our thoughts concerning the selection of Playboy as one of many magazines that carry Prince Matchabelli advertising.

"As you must know, Playboy is purposely edited for the young American male and clearly is not a general or family publication. Reliable studies show that Playboy has become the nation's most popular men's magazine in the span of a few short years and reaches several million young, urban-oriented and well-educated men each month. These men have, of their own choice, elected to purchase a magazine that would seem to be far more acceptable than [a great many other] magazines that have been on sale for decades and have never really been supported by readers or advertisers in any significant numbers. Perhaps this is true because Playboy publishes some of the finest, most thought-provoking fiction, satire, articles, cartoons, service features, art and photography appearing in the magazine world today....

"The result has been the growth of a magazine that effectively reaches a particular audience of consumers who are excellent prospects for hundreds of products.... Prince Matchabelli, incidentally this nation's fastest growing fragrance house, needs to present its advertising story to these young men, so well-reached through Playboy magazine. They are logical prospects for our men's fragrance products, Black Watch, and are important gift-giving purchasers for women's fragrance products....

"I do hope that this summary of our judgment concerning the inclusion of Playboy magazine in our list of magazines for Prince Matchabelli advertising has been of interest to you. We would hope that you might select your favorite fragrance on its merits in much the same spirit as we have attempted to select our advertising media."

And the advertising manager of American Honda Motor Co. wrote: "Thank you for your interest in our selection of advertising media. We are concerned with favorable exposure of our advertising message to American adults with an interest in and a capacity for buying our product. Playboy delivers this exposure.

"If you were surprised that such a reputable business firm as ours, which can hardly have achieved high repute in Dubuque, since we are new to the market [would advertise in Playboy], you must have been truly shocked at the appearance of such old and reputable firms as: [A list of 28 major Playboy advertisers follows.]

"At your suggestion, we have reconsidered our policy of advertising in this publication, and now view the future bravely, hoping that we will be able to continue our support of a truly adult periodical in the face of misguided efforts to reduce the intellectual level of this nation's mass publications to that of school-age children. However, if you will furnish this office with (1) the names of other advertisers to whom you have written who 'have acknowledged the soundness' of your disapproval and/or (2) the content of their replies, we will undertake a review of our policy once again.

"In the meantime, please note our company name, as displayed in Playboy, is 'Honda,' not 'Hondo.' We feel further impelled to point out that the quotation you so thoughtfully included at the bottom of your letter indicates an accusation rather than a conviction. Unlike the tribunals of the Inquisition, the courts of this country do not presume guilt prior to the trial; nor, we are hopeful, do the members of your congregation.

"Finally, I am enclosing, for your disapproval, a list of New York Stock Exchange members who advertise in Playboy and a proof of our next insertion."

If attempts at censorship and coercion on the part of ordinary citizens are reprehensible, how much more repugnant must be such undemocratic actions on the part of men who hold some special position of power, because of their established rank in church or government. A growing number of liberal Catholics recognize this fact clearly and are most outspoken on the subject.

In an address before an audience of 6500 at Jesuit University of San Francisco last March, University of Tübingen's Professor of Dogmatic Theology Hans Küng eschewed dogmatism and called upon the Roman Catholic Church to abolish its Index of Prohibited Books and cease its censorship of speech and press. He said the Church has committed sins against the freedom of man, and to outsiders the Church sometimes looks more like a prison than a sanctuary of the spirit.

In June, Cardinal Cushing, in two lengthy interviews with the Reverend Walter M. Abbott, S. J., feature editor of America, the National Catholic Weekly Review, said much the same thing. The Cardinal urged the removal of the "famous promises" asked by the Catholic Church of the non-Catholic partner in a mixed marriage, as "an irritant to many, and some, it is clear from what happens, make the promises in bad faith" ... with this change, "we would start those marriages off in the context of a church which opens up the possibility of many graces being given, instead of the generating of feelings of frustration, hostility, etc." He also favored abolishing the Index of Prohibited Books and stated, that if the Vatican Council II, first summoned by Pope John XXIII, is faithful to the pastoral approach requested by the late pontiff, "there should be considerable changes in church law.

"After all, canon law is the result of pastoral needs," said the Cardinal. "But the needs of one time are not the needs of another. The laws of the past that were put on the books to take care of the problems of the past may not be of much help to a later generation.

"In fact, they can sometimes be a hindrance in the care of souls. That is why I think the Council can and should do something about our many problems...."

The principles at stake in censorship were set forth with admirable clarity by Father John Courtney Murray, S. J., Professor of Moral Theology at Woodstock College, Maryland, in an address on "Literature and Censorship." He offered four rules which, as the editor of Harper's has noted, ought to command the enthusiastic support of all Americans regardless of religious belief:

"(1) Each minority group has the right to censor for its own members, if it so chooses, the contents of the various media of communication, and to protect them, by means of its own choosing, from materials considered harmful according to its standards." (He also pointed out that in the United States "all religious groups ... are minority groups.")

"(2) No minority group has the right to demand that government should impose a general censorship [on material] judged to be harmful according to the special standards held within that group.

"(3) Any minority group has the right to work toward the elevation of standards of public morality ... through the use of the methods of persuasion and pacific argument.

"(4) No minority group has the right to impose its own religious or moral views on other groups, through the use of methods of force, coercion, or violence."

Father Murray went on to warn that methods of coercion are especially imprudent for Catholics or Catholic associations. "The chief danger," he said, "is lest the Church itself be identified in the public mind as a power association. The identification is injurious; it turns into hate of the faith. And it has the disastrous effect of obscuring from the public view the true visage of the Church as God's kingdom of truth and freedom, justice and love."

He quoted Jacques Leclercq, of the Catholic University of Louvain, "who is no slight authority," the dictum that "no government has ever succeeded in finding a balanced policy of combating unhealthy sexual propaganda without injuring legitimate freedom or provoking other equally grave or worse disorders."

Dean Joseph O'Meara, of the Notre Dame Law School, expressed the point most forcefully like this: "Unfortunately many sincere people do not comprehend the genius of our democracy ... such people would deny free speech to those with whom they are in fundamental disagreement.... They would establish a party line in America -- their party line, of course. This is an alien concept, a totalitarian concept; it is not consistent with the American tradition; it is antidemocratic; it is, in short, subversive and it should be recognized for what it is."

The best evidence that an official of government can conscientiously execute his administrative duties without permitting his religious beliefs to interfere is President John F. Kennedy. He is the first Roman Catholic to ever hold the highest office in our land and whatever forebodings religious bigots had, as regards a Catholic President, they have not come to pass. His decisions, both good and bad, have been made as the Chief Executive of all these United States, and not as a member of a particular minority group.

He has publicly opposed Federal aid to parochial schools, which the Catholic Church strongly favors; he has endorsed the Supreme Court decision to keep prayers and other religious exercises out of the public schools; he has taken a more positive, progressive stand on the dissemination of birth-control materials and techniques to underprivileged foreign countries, suffering the results of uncontrolled population explosion, than did his Protestant predecessor.

He offers an outstanding example of the manner in which a government official can and should keep separate his responsibilities to church and state. It is an example that many lesser public officials would do well to emulate.

On the specific matter of censorship, John F. Kennedy, then a Senator from Massachusetts, summed up the subject with these prophetic words: "The lock on the legislature, the parliament or the assembly hall, by order of the King, the Commissar or the Führer, has historically been followed or preceded by a lock on the door of the printer's, the publisher's or the bookseller's."

In the June installment of The Playboy Philosophy, we quoted these all-too-prophetic words from Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black: "... [The Bill of Rights] is intended to see that a man cannot be jerked by the back of the neck by any government official; he cannot have his home invaded; he cannot be picked up legally and carried away because his views are not satisfactory to the majority...."

But that is precisely what happened to us that very month.

It would be a simple matter to give in to such pressures. Our business is not dependent upon the expression of these outspoken editorial views. Indeed, it has been proven that voicing them only produces attempts at retaliation, making our life and the earning of our livelihood just a little more difficult. But this is a contest involving a principle that we cannot back away from.

We have already been offered a compromise. The maximum fine involved here is S400 -- $200 on each of two counts for "publishing and circulating" obscene material. The legal fees and cost in time, for ourself and a number of our executives, will be, of course, many times that figure. The prosecutor for the Corporation Counsel's office asked our legal counsel: Would we settle for a plea of guilty if the fine were reduced to $100? ... $50? ... $10? ... $5?

But we will fight for the principle -- because the principle is an important one to us.

We quoted something else by Justice Black in that June issue -- on obscenity: "It was the law in Rome that they could arrest people for obscenity after Augustus became Caesar. Tacitus says that then it became obscene to criticize the Emperor."

Our case comes up at about the same time as this November issue goes on sale. We'll apprise you of the outcome.

In the next installment of "The Playboy Philosophy," Editor-Publisher Hugh M. Hefner will discuss sexual conduct in contemporary society and how the schism between supposed beliefs and actual behavior breeds sickness for the body, mind and soul of man.

Because of the unusual length of this month's "Philosophy," the issue includes no "Playboy Forum," but the "Forum" will be continued next month. Address all letters re the "Philosophy" to The Playboy Forum, Playboy, 232 E. Ohio Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611.