Motion Picture News (Apr - Jun 1914)

THE IMOTIOX PICTURE NEWS 25 PENNSYLVANIA CENSORS FACE THREE SUITS Universal and Mutual File First; Second Entered by Mutual Company of New York — Third Is Filed by Exhibitors of Quaker City — Assail Constitutionality of Law and Seek Injunction — Arrests Will Come June 15 if Restraining Order Is Not Granted special to The Motion Picture News. Philadelphia, June 12, 1914. THE first guns of the battle against censorship in Pennsylvania were fired on June 2, when three suits in equity were filed against J. Lewis Breitinger and Mrs. E. C. Niver, comprising the Pennsylvania state board of censors of motion pictures. The suit of the most vital importance is the one entered into jointly by the Mutual Film Corporation, of Pennsylvania, and the Interstate Films Company, the representatives of the Universal company in eastern Pennsylvania. The bill in equity was signed by James H. Butner for Mutual, Vernon R. Carrick for -Interstate. The second suit names as plaintiffs the Mutual Film Corporation, of New York, with offices at Buffalo, and is signed by Arthur Lucas, who is the eastern district manager for Mutual. The third suit names Albert E. Brown, William Sachsenmaier and Vernon R. Carrick. trading as the Overbrook Theatre The complainants in this case arc exhibitors and claim that to enforce the law at this time would be denying the exhibitors the right to test its legality. THE complaining companies seekto have the act establishing the censor board declared unconstitutional on the ground that it imposes upon them, "in a manner wholly beyond the police powers possessed by the general assembly of the commonwealth, the legal duty, as a condition precedent to the rights of your orators to rent films, reels and stereopticon views, of first obtaining the approval of the defendants to the films, which approval, under the terms of the act, may be withheld by the defendants if, in their unlimited judgment and discretion, formed without any hearing whatsoever and without the right of any appeal therefrom, said films are sacrilegious, obscene, indecent, immoral or such as tend to corrupt morals." The complainants aver that the receipt by them, on April 25 last, of the pamphlet containing the rules and regulations of the censorship, did not give them time to comply with its provisions. The censors entered office on January 20, but did not begin their duties until April 4. The imposition of a tax of $2.50 upon each original film and its copies, approved by the board, is arbitrary and contrary to the constitution of the commonwealth, the complainants aver. These fees, it is complained, are exorbitant. At the present time 15,000 films are being exhibited throughout the state, it is set forth, and at least 700 films, many of which are duplicates, are ready for release each week, all of which are to be inspected by the censors. ASIDE from asking that the act be declared unconstitutional, the complainant companies seek an injunction restraining the censors from enforcing its provisions, and also to restrain them from investigating the films on view or disapproving the exhibition of the pictures. Already the censors have demanded that the exchanges submit all their films to be exhibited after June 1 for inspection, and have threatened that unless their demand is complied with they will cause the arrest of the complainants and all others who attempt to place on exhibition films that have not been approved. A further complaint from the manufacturers is that it is a physical impossibility for the censors to inspect from time to time enough films to meet the demands of the exhibitors and keep within the law. "One of the most important elements in determining the rental value of a film is the novelty thereof and the proximity of the date of the production of it to the release date." relates the bill in equity. "Were the complainants obliged to await the approval of the board of censors on all their films, it is contended the delay which would necessarily follow under present conditions would mean a tremendous financial loss." The act creating the board of censors, the companies charge by its provisions, places an embargo on all engaged in the motion picture business, and prohibits them from carrying on a lawful business, pending an arbitrary ruling of the censors. The producers further protest vigorously against being compelled to provide suitable rooms, paraphernalia, etc., at their own expense for the display of the reel and films while being inspected by the censors. TO the provision of the act imposing a penalty of $50 for the first ofi"ense and a fine of $100 for each subsequent act of exhibiting pictures unapproved by the board of censors, the bill of complaint declares that thousands of dollars would be collected daily for disregard of this requirement. The penalties, it is affirmed, are extreme and excessive, and intended to limit or prevent a test of the validity of the act, and to so burden anj^ challenge of its legality that the complainants and others in a similar business would be necessarily constrained to submit and comply with its requirements, in the fear that their property rights would be destroyed by criminal proceedings. The burden of paying the fine is placed upon the exhibitors, it is pointed out, and is for the purpose of deterring them from renting the films pending a decision on the legality of the act. This condition, it is alleged, is hampering the exchanges from carrying on their business, and is an infringement on their property rights. THE act is at variance with the constitution of this state, it is contended, as it confers on the censors legislative powers in determining the standard of the films which are invested only in the general assembly. In violation of the Pennsylvania and United States constitutions, it is contended, the act abridges the rights of the complainants and others to freely exhibit films to the public. The subjects which the films will present, it is declared, are dramatizations, current events of historical and news interest which have appeared in hundreds of magazines, newspapers and periodicals throughout the country, and which are not violative of the laws. J. M. Solomon, Jr. Harrisburg, Pa., June 11. npHERE is practically a condition ■■■ of armed truce existing between the Pennsylvania State Board of Censors and the film manufacturers who have organized and brought a suit in Philadelphia to test the constitutionality of the censorship law which went into effect in this state on June 1. Under this tacit agreement, the board is not yet making arrests of exhibitors who display films without tlie stamp of the board's approval. It is understood, however, that unless there is a restraining order