Motion Picture Commission : hearings before the Committee on Education, House of Representatives, Sixty-third Congress, second session, on bills to establish a Federal Motion Picture Commission (1978)

24 MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION. In his secoud article Canon Chase divides his argument under eight heads, to which I shall briefly reply: 1. He argues that by having censorship the public confidence in motion pic- tures will be increased. More people would therefore go to moving-picture shows, and in consequence the business will develop and expand. My objection to censorship is based on principle, as being reactionary and un-American, not on mere tem]iorai"y commercial success. Even if censorship did indirectly re- sult in a benefit in a purely material sense, as a lawyer I would still oppose It as wrong in principle. However, I do not agree with Canon Chase as to his conclusions. I don't think American people are afraid to go to motion-picture shows. Certainly I have yet to find anyone refusing to patronize a picture theater because of any real or supposed objection to the morals of the pictures. On the other hand, should censoi'ship be carried to its greatest possible extent, should all portrayal of life and human experience as actually exists be sup- pressed and the motion picture reduced to a mere mental pap. I am convinced that the interest in pictures, and their many benefits to the poor man and his family, would be enormously lessened. My opponent refers a number of times to the English stage censorship. Does he approve of it? In England the lord chamberlain has the unqualified right to refuse to license a play. Almost to a man the theatrical managers approve of the censorship; with the same imanimity the authors and playwrights oppose it. Why is this? Simply be- cause the licensing of a i»lay in England confers innnuiiity on the theater fore- stalling any possible action. In a sense it is an insurance against [a-osecution. They care not to what extent the poor author or playwright may be harassed by the censor; they refuse to put on a play that has not withstood the fire of the censorial criticism. Such a thing is impossible in this country, since we are dealing with more than 40 separate, sovereign Commonwealths, and not with practically a single homogeneous country with one set of laws. Should censorship be accepted as a desirable thing, it is safe to say that each State will have its own censorship board. Undoubtedly these censorship boards, when once started, will not be satisfied merely with a supervision of motion pictures, but will extend their activities in other and equally fertile fields. 2. If, by his argument. Canon Chase means that obscene or immoral pictures are now being shown in New York City or elsewhere, then I state without qualification that if such is the case, the law is not being enforced. There is not a single conuiiunity in the XTnited States in which an obscene or immoral picture can be shown without violating the law, and if such pictures are shown it simply means that the law is not being enforced. I do not think that Canon Chase can fairly charge any community with the failure to enforce its laws. The mere fact, as stated by him. that certiiin local censorships have partly or wholly eliminated films that have been passed by the ^v'ational Hoard of Cen- sorship, is not important. One of my arguments is that sm.all local boiirds will be inclined to be overzealous, merely to convince the people tliat there Is a justification for their existence and for the continuance of their salaries. Tlie mere fact that a film may have been rejected by a local boiird is not by any means conclusive th:it it should have been rejected at all. or that it con- tains any features that can be fairly objected to. 3. The next ;irguinent is quite unintelligible to me. Does my opponent mean to censor only pictures th;it :U'e to be shown in theaters where an admission is charged? Is the uncousored picture to be shown on the '• i)ublic common." and, if so. what becomes of the argument that the pui'pose of censorshiii Is to pre- serve the " rights of childhood"? rareutlietically 1 will inquire if Canon Chase, in referring to the i)icture showing " the childrtMi playing tag or romping with the liouse dog," has in mind the character of films that will safely pass the oensorship? 4. So far .as the next argument of Canon Chase is concerned, he and I simply do not agree. I say that if the idea of censorship is accepted by the American peoi)le. the number'of censor boards will be legion. He says that if there is a single Federal censor board the States and municiiialities will not bother with (.•ensorshi]t. We ai-e both s])eculating as to the future, but when the fact is borne in mind tluit Americans are natural-born otlice seekers, I submit that the temptation to create a lot of political offices would be too great to be resisted. .">. He is i)lainly wrong in his fifth argument. As a matter of fact, at the present time tilnis are being censored by the National lioard of Censorship. :iud yet the police authorities of Chicago and other cities insist upon having their own censorship.