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)

172 MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION. come the censorship of the press, and then, what is to prevent the censorship of religion? The "criminal courts" have sufficient au- thority to punish anything shown which is contrary to the moral or political interests of the State. Furthermore, the bill, as I understand it, would not prevent any State from having its State censorship and every city from having its special censors, and what will be the result? The result will be the destruction of the greatest educational system that has ever been conceived. I submit a letter from the late Mayor Gaynor, which expresses so much in regard to censorship that I ask that it be accepted as a part of my views on this subject. This is a letter written by Mayor Gaynor, whose reputation is too well known for me to expatiate upon it. The letter reads as follows: OryiCK OF THK Mayor, City of Xew York, Deccmher 21, 1912. To the honorable the Board of Aldermen : Gentlemen : I return disapproved the proposed ordinunce, No. 89, entitle<l "An ordinance relative to motion-picture theaters." I am constrained to do this because of the provisions therein creating a cen- sorship. It is provided that the board of education shall appoint one or more censors to examine all motion pictures in advance and determine whether they shall be exhibited or not. It has hitherto been the understanding in this country that no censorship can be established by law to decide in advance what may or may not be lawfully printed or published. Ours is a government of free speech and a free press. That is the cornerstone of free government. The phrase, ' the press," includes all methods of expression by writing or pictures. In past ages there were cen- sorships to decide what might be published, or even believed. Every Christian denomination has at one time or another been subjected to such censorship. The few were very anxious not to give freedom of speech or of the press. They thought tlae many were not fit for it. They therefore set themselves up as censors and guardians over the bulk of their fellow men. The center of thought was then among the few, and they were very anxious to keep it there. But in the course of time, in spite of all opposition, the center of thought began to pass from the few to the many, where it is to-day. It was then that censor- ships and all interference with freedom of speech, of the press, and of opinion began to give way by degrees, until in the end all of them, at all events with us, were abolished. And that is now substantially true under all free governments througliout the world. In our fundamental instruments of government in this country, which we call constitutions, we expi-essly guaranteed from the beginning free speech and a free press, and prohibited the passing of any law abridging the same. The pro- vision in the constitution of this State on that subject, which is substantially the same as the like provision in the Constitution of the Ignited States, and also of the States generally, is as follows: " Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all sub- jects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press." So universal has been the opinion that these constitutional provisions abol- ished all censorships of the press, and forbade them in the future, that I have been able to find only one attempt in this country to set up such a censorship before this one of yours. Our constitutional provision plainly is that publica- tions, whether oral or printed, or by writing, or by pictures, shall not be re- strained in advance, but that everyone shall be free to speak or i)ublish what he sees fit, subject to being prosecuted afterwards for libel, immorality, obscenity, or indecency therefor. There seem to be a few among us who wish us to re- trace our steps and resort to censorships again in advance of publication, and make it a crime to publish anything not permitted in advance by the censor. Do they know what they are doing? Do they know anything of the history and literature of the subject? Do they know that the censorships of past ages did Immeasurably more harm than good? Do they ever stop to think that such