WE AGREE entirely with the authors of the editorial above in their denunciation of the showing of Deep Throat and in their abhorrence of the intrusion of the state into the affair. Their position, however, begs one question--which of the two positions is more important when they come directly into conflict. The Quincy House Film Society should have been sensitive to the wishes and feelings of many within the Harvard community and never chosen to show the film. But once they had decided to ignore the outcry, they were correct in not bowing to a challenge from the state that can only be described as dangerous to First Amendment rights. Friday afternoon, after a judge properly denied a motion to enjoin the showing, officials of the district's attorney's office threatened to arrest Carl Stork and Nathan Hagen anyway if they went ahead and screened the movie. Stork and Hagen were right to decide to go ahead and show the movie. Not to do so would have been to bow to extralegal bullying and set a dangerous precedent. The district attorney's office, if not challenged, would more than likely have tried to intimidate others in the future--people who might not have had acces first-rate legal talent.

In a broader sense, any legal challenge to "pornography" or any other form of speech or expression must be met head on. Not to do so is to legitimize censorhisp--and censorship, once it has a foothold, can spread to many other areas.

The motive in showing in film makes no difference; the Founding Fathers knew that profit motivates much in America, and they intended protection for more than the altruistic. And the level of support within the House should not be a factor either--the First Amendment is absolutely drawn, and guarantees the rights of even the smallest minorities. If one student wants to show Deep Throat, he should have that freedom without the fear of legal prosecution. And it challenged, he or she should go ahead and show the film--to uphold the First Amendment for others.