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 PICTURE COMMISSION. 17 "Every citizen may freely speiik, write, and i)\il)]ish his senlinients on all subjects, being responsible for the abnse of that riji^ht; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press." Now, I ask my readers to ponder that provision of our constitutions. It represents, or is supposed to represent, the American ideal. It is the concrete statement of what man had fought for during many centuries. It is an epitome of human rights. It is the principal article of the treaty of peace between the common man and the tyrants who sought to think, speak, and write for him. It recalls as banished the sorrow of ages, the death of martyrs, and the Spanish inquisition. Is the idea repugnant to us that the State decree a national I'eligion with forms and ceremonies that we must adoptV Is the idea repugnani, to us that the State insist that no criticism of its constitution or ofticers should be uttered? Is the idea repugnant to us that the State see to it that no news- paper or book is issued without first receiving the approval of a licensing authority V Merely to suggest such things in this age of freedom is like a proposition to arm our soldiers with bows and arrows. We would resist, as a most serious impairment of our personal liberty, any attenijit to take away these great fundamental rights. Why can not it be seen that the suggestion of censorshii) is a denial of personal lilterty, a denial of fre<' si)eech and a free press—because the motion picture tells its story just as effectively as the spoken or written wordV The advocates of censorship say. in effect, to the American people: " These motion pictures are a source of danger to you and your children; they depict crime, scandal, innnorality; some of them are in shocking bad taste. If you should look at these pictures, or if your children should see them, yon and they would become contaminated. We believe that the effect of these ])ictures would be to suggest to you and your children that you and they should become murderers, burglars, and inunoralists. We believe that the tendency of these pictures would be to make you and your children defy the laws and become law- breakers. We believe tliat they will make you and them cruel and bloodthirsty. We believe that they will have a tendency to make you and your children com- mit suicide. Now, entertiiining these beliefs, and with the earnest desire to protect you and your children so that we may elevate tlie moral tone of the entire community and reduce crime and vice, we reserve the right to look over these pictures before you see them, and if there are any pictures that, in ouv opinion, you and your children ought not to be allowed to see, then we shall condemn them and not i»ermit them to be shov,-n anywhere." What do American citizens, inheriting the great constitutional rights of reli- gious freedom and freedom of speech and of the press, think of such a proposi- tion as this? Here is a body of persons claiming the superior right to do the thinking for tlie multitude on the subject of what they shall or shall not see. They object to a picture. Out it goes, never to be seen by the connnon man. Should not the common man have the right of deciding for himself whether he approves? Censors are only men, with all the frailties and weaknesses and prejudices of their fellow men. Will they never make mistakes? Kemember tliat recent English censorshii) condemned the Mikado, and that one liberal- minded censor refused to license any drama in which the words "heaven" or " angel " appeared. The fact must not be lost sight of that these opinions of the all-powerful censor are not to be confined to a single body, but, if the principle is adopted, in time will be extended to every State, city, and township of the country. Furthermore, we must not forget that no censor or body of censors can take away from the State its police i)ower, so that even if a picture is approved by all the censors of the country, the owner of a thetiter still might be arrested and prosecuted for exhibiting it. because of its alleged violation of some law. The advocates of censorship must not delude themselves into the belief that their aitjtroval of a picture is going to grant to it the slightest immunity from attack by the police authorities. Now, as opposed to the .-ibove views, the opponents of censorship maintain the following position: " We l)eli(>ve that it is not within the power of any man or body of men to tell us or our children what we shall or shall not .see. We reserve that right to ourselves, We i-efuse to allow anyone to lay down to us what shall be our code of morals or taste. We insist that, we shall decide those questions ourselves. If our children go to theaters where inqiroper jiictures are shown, that is our lookout, and not the lookout of the State. If an inqiroper or grossly inunoral or licentious film be exhibited by any chance, the proprietor 44072—No. 1—14 2