Tulsans Back Bill to Ban Smut Literature
(Editor’s Note: Oklahoma lawmakers are in the process of considering several proposed laws in the sphere of moral and social legislation. This is the first in a series of articles on legislative bills outlining the author’s ideas and how Tulsa leaders stand on the proposals. The articles will appear each week on the Tulsa Tribune’s Saturday page of religious news.”
By Jo Ann Green
Church News Editor
March 25, 1961
An Oklahoma law, which would curb effectively the ever increasing flow of obscene literature, would be heartily welcomed by Tulsans who have been active in battling the problem.
But, the consensus is that it would have to be accompanied by an aroused public and be adequate to stand a couple of tests – constitutionaly and the inclusion of an adequate definition of what is obscene.
Rep. Cleeta John Rogers, an Oklahoma City attorney, is the author of a bill he believes would be a big step toward controlling the publication and circulation of obscene literature.
The bill would, as he put it, “provide Oklahoma citizens and county attorneys an effective legal weapon to enfore a law making publication, circulation and distribution of obscene material criminal offenses.”
Here is waht Tulsans had to say about enactment of such a law:
David Milsten, chairman of the Tulsa Board of Review for Juvenile Readers: “I would welcome any law which chould stand the test of constitutionality.”
County Atty. Robert D. Simms: “Any law must contain a good definition of what constitutes obscenity. Lack of such a definition has provided the major roadblock in past cases.”
Mrs. Vance Smith, president of the Tulsa Council of Parent-Teacher Associations: “The Rogers bill has drawn the endorsement of the Oklahoma P-TA Congress, so it is certain the Tulsa Council will consider it. If the Oklahoma Congress backed the bill it must be an adequare one.”
Churches have entered the battle. The 1960 convention of Oklahoma Christian Churches adopted a resolution urging enactment of an indecent literature law.
There is in existence a state commission to review questionable literature, but it has received no appropriation and therefore does not function, Rep. Rogers explained.
The Tulsa board headed by Milsten, an attorney, has been active since it was established by city ordinance in 1934, but has found complainants’ reluctance to prosecute to be its major problem.
Milsten said many parents have communicated with him either by personal call or by telephone aboutliterature their children have obtained. But, when they learn the child will have to be a witness in any prosecution, they drop the issue, he said.
“This board has encouraged parents to bring before it any materials they consider lewd or obscene, the facts and circumstances surrounding the purchase of it and also teh children who reveived it,” Milsten added.
On the matter of constitutionality, the Tulsa attorney cited a Chicago case on which the U.S. Supreme Court was unable to reach a unanimous decision.
“Even the highest court in the land was unable to agre on what is obscene,” he said.
“It’s a matter of relativity. A picture used as art in the art section of a magazine or a newspaper would not be objectional if it were captioned as such. But put the same picture in a cheap publication with a different caption and it would be considered objectional.”
Milsten was asked by former U.S. Postmaster General Arthur Summerfield to become one of…