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)

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.

30 MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION". they thus see is real life. Censored motion pictures are an uplifting educational influence, and at the same time more amusing and interesting. Instead of scenes of degeneration, they show scenes of growth. For a grow- ing flower is more interesting to normal people than a cesspool. REBUTTAL FOR THE NEGATIVE, BY PRESIDENT DYER. Your argument, Canon Chase, regarding the mad dog, is against you. The policeman kills the dog after the madness develops. To be consistent, you should provide for censoring all dogs, examine into their pedigree, decide if it Is probable that they will develop rabies, and if so, then destroy them. You advocate killing the dog, not because he is surely mad, but because you con- sider him mad cr have reason to believe he may become mad. In your last article, like the honest man you are, you tell us in a few words Why you believe in censorship. The "ignorance of the i)0lice. juries, and judges concerning the moral aiul psychological effect of bad pictures upon children." the fact that censors (as distinguished from ordinary mortals) possess " trained minds " on the subect of morals, and " the very general nonenforcvnieiit of law," are the real'reasons why you advocate such an extraordinary and un- precedented departure from general practice. My dear Canon, if I were as hopeless of our institutions as .von are. if I had so little confidence in the uprightness and honor of our people, I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you. But I believe in law. believe in our insti- tutions. And even if I were iiessimistic enoi^gli to thin.k tb.at " police, judge.s. and juries"' were incapable of de;',liug rightly with this subject. I would try to remedy the evil along the lines of lawful i»rocedure, and not b.v advocating— apparently as a despairing alternative to anarchy—a return to the inquisition of the Middle Ages. And so. my good friend—I may call you such, may I not?— I leave the subject to the judgment of our readers, expressing to you the senti- ments of my most distinguished consideration. REJ?UTTAL FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE. CY CANON CHASE. Mr. Dyer Ciills my method of eliminating inmuiral pictures r. Russo-Turkish, medieval way. li) my first article I pointed out that the growth of the license system of protecting the public from impure food an.d various evils through the work of ins])eccors is one of the most modern ways of effective governmental action. So long as there is a legal apitcal fnuu any improiter decisions, there can be no ground for calling it a tyrannical, arbitrary, anarchistic, or medieval method. My ojjponent thinks me lacking in faith in our Amovican institutions because I do not think policemen and the courts are the best judges of the nior.-'.l effect of pictures ui)on children. He fails to luiderstand that as we have specializtni judges on many .subjects, such as in children's courts, and courts of domestic relations, so it is best, and a perfectly legal and American method, to place the first decision as to the good or evil psychological effect of certain motion pictures upon children, not in the hands of jiolicemen or judges who are coni inu.-illy jiass- ing upon matters concerning motives and deeds of adults, but inio the Ininds of a motion-picture board, who have been .selected because of their knowle<lge of dramatic art, of morals, and of child nature. The highest court in niin(jis has twice unanimously declared (T.lock r. Chi- cago, 2ol» 111.. 2!j7) that such ;i censorship as I a<lvoi-ate is legal. A law such as I advocate has been introduced in the New York Legislature. I hope that some Member of Congress will introduce a bill at Washington using the interstate conunerce power of Congress to forbid the transportation of motion pictures unless (lit>y arc licensed by the Coi)yright r.urcau. or by some Fetleral motion-picture conunission. Mr. Dyer raises the objection that the expenses of censorship will have to be borne by the exhibtors. who will shift it upon the people. Yet Mr. Dyer is advocating not only the most ineilicient. but the most exi)ensive method of eliminating bad pictures. Instead of .a f(>w people in one jilace, ;it NVashington, Inspecting all films, Mr. Dyer's n)ethod re<piires police to attend all shows every- where, to hunt for bad pictures, and then riH|uires the expen.^Jes of a district attorney and a court in the vari(nis parts of the country in order to eliminate each bad picture. The method advocateil by me saves the public alino.st all of this expense.