Motion Picture Story Magazine (Feb 1914 - Sep 1916 (assorted issues))

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

66 MOTION PICTURE MAGAZINE constitutional provision. It was done in April, 1909, in the case of Block et al. versus City of Chicago (239 111., 251). The claim that the Chicago censorship of Motion Pictures violated the freedom of the press was so absurd that the lawyers of the Motion Picture manufacturers did not think it worth while to present to the attention of the Court. In none of the many cases of appeal, which have been made in the various states against censorship on account of unconstitutionality, has the contention been sustained by the courts, so far as I have been able to learn. If the case now pending concerning the Ohio censorship law should result in declaring the Ohio law to be unconstitutional, it will not affect my contention, for the Ohio law is more sweeping in its provisions than any moderate and reasonable restriction, such as I have ever advocated, and is much more open to the charge of improperly restraining the freedom of the press. SECOND ARTICLE FOR THE NEGATIVE By PRESIDENT DYER The argument of Canon Chase, supporting censorship, is based largely on the assumption that unless pictures are made to conform to the moral views of the censors, their exhibition will demoralize children. In several places he refers to the "rights of childhood," by which apparently he means the right of a child to be protected from seeing an uncensored Motion Picture. Of course, neither in law, nor ethics, nor morals, does any such right exist. It is not the duty of the state to protect the children in the way proposed by Canon Chase. It is the duty of parents, the natural guardians of children, to protect them from contamination. This is the gravest responsibility of parenthood, and it must not be shirked, nor must its burdens be tossed upon the insecure shoulders of the state. If the state is to assume this burden, then I ask what will the state do in enforcing the "rights of childhood" in connection with other forms of entertainment and amusement? What about the regular theater? Are children to be allowed to attend dramatic performances, or are they to be entirely excluded, or is the drama to be cen "It is not the duty of the state to protect the children, but of parents and guardians." sored, as in England? What about the newspapers ? A child on the lookout for evil, or a supersensitive one, can find much that is suggestive in probably every paper published in the United States. Are books to be censored? Canon Chase must realize that to a supersensitive child literature contains much that is suggestive, and, from his viewpoint, probably immoral. If there be such a thing as the "rights of childhood" that can be infringed by the exhibition of uncensored M o t i o n Pictures, then I submit in all seriousness that those rights are just as effectively infringed by the ordinary drama, by newspapers, and by literature, and I insist that the same arguments in support of a censorship of Motion Pictures apply with equal force to the censorship of the stage, of newspapers, and of books. When I speak of censorship I do not mean the elimination of perfectly plain instances of indecency and immorality, because no one questions for a moment the effectiveness of our lav:s to protect the public mind from such sewage in whatever form it may be offered. My point is that censorship is unnecessary with respect to all subjects regarding