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)

MOTION PICTUBE COMMISSION. 55 Mr. Bush. You would like to have Avhat I know about the Ohio situation ? Mr. Powers. And about the other matter, too, these laws of other countries. Brief summary of censorship laws affcctiiit; the la'iiu-iii.il countries of Euroi>e. Submitted by Mr. W. Stephen Bush : ENGLAND. There is no legal censorship of motion pictures in England. There doe.s, however, exist a self-imposed censorship. This censorship had its origin in the following manner: Mr. Bedford, who for many years had been a censor of plays in England and whose work had been generally commented upon for its fairness, was approached by the producers and importers of motion pictures in Eglaud and asked to censor their pictures for them. It was suggestd to him that he might be able to get an official sanction for his censorship from the office of the home secretary. Mr. Bedford went to the office of the home secretary, who told him that the home office could not take official cognizance of his work as a censor of motion pictures, but that in an informal way the secretary would commend his work. Upon this basis is built censorship of motion pictures iu England. No exchange will buy and no exhibitor will display a film which does not bear the approval of Mr. Bedford. Mr. Bedford has a large number of assistants who perform the routine work of the office. Whenever they feel in doubt as to whether a film ought to be passed or not, they call upon INIr. Bedford. Mr. Bedford looks at the film and if it seems to him that certain eliminations ought to be made, he communicates with the producer or importer and some ar- rangement is made which is mutually satisfactory. Only in very rare instances did the local magistrates attemi)t to interfere with the censorship of Mr. Bed- ford. There is no legal force behind the decisions of Mr. Bedford, but the in- dustry and the public are satisfied to accept them. FRANCE. There is no legal censorship in France. There is no special prohibition ex<-ei»t a law which forbids the presentation upon the screen of the details attending an execution. Aside from this the producer, distributor, and exhibitor of motion pictures is left free to find his own way. There are laws against indecent exhibitions, but these laws have been interpreted very liberally by the French courts. As a matter of fact, the films in France are as free as the r»ewsi)apers and books. ITALY. There is, properly speaking, no censorship in Italy. The police do not inter- fere except upon a specific complaint. As far as I know, films do not have to l^e submitted to the police authorities before they are exhibited on the screen. GERMANY. The police in Germany exercise strict and complete censorship over all pic- tures. No picture can be shown in any part of the Empire unless it has been examined and approved by the police authorities of the proper jurisdiction. The decisions of the police department of Berlin are accepted by the police departments of other parts of the Empire, but this is merely a comity, and each political subdivision of the Empire retains the right of censoring pictures. The police in Germany are very indulgent as to sex problems, amorous adven- tures, etc., but they are rigorous in dealing with pictures supposed to lack in respect for the authorities. An American comedy making fun of policemen will not be passed by any police censors of Germany. The German law allows an appeal from the decisions of the police authorities to the court of civil and criminal jurisdiction in the district and the further appeal to the impej-ial court at Leipsig. AUSTRIA. The censorship in Austria is exercised by the i^olice. but it seems that each Province of the Empire is independent of the other and there is no Federal