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)

40 MOTIOX PICTUKE COMMISSION. iind rts unrestrained as possible. That, at lea.st. has been the policy ( f the traditions in our own country. Take the medium of expres- sion that is afforded l)v the stage. We do not den}' that the State has the right to deal with any abuse of liberty of expression of which the stage may be guilty, but I do not think that we will ever contend that the piayright before he is permitted to put his play on the boards must subuiit it to a committee composed of policemen or censors. Xow, take the other medium of expression, the newspaper. We surely do not contend that the editor must send proof sheets of his editorials to police headquarters before they can be given to the compositor. Now, there is no question at all in the minds of those who have given any tiuie or attention to the study of this subject that the motion picture is a very valuable, a A'ery powerful mediuui of expression, and I can not see any reason why the motion picture, as a medium of expressi(;n, should not enjoy the same franchise, the same imnninities and privileges, together with the same responsibilities, which we impose upon the stage or upon the press. We do not want to place the motion picture above the law, not at all; just as little as we intend to place the press or the stage above the law. Our courts are iilled with suits for libel. Every year some men are haled before the courts and punished be- caus3 they have abused the liberty of the press, because they have published obscene articles, but surely we would not draw the con- clusion from such a state of facts that you ought to resurrect censor- ship. Censorship is a thing of the past. It is from the mediaeval chamber of horrors, if I may say so. It lias and it can not have any root in the country of civilization. The Chairman. Do you mean to say that there sliould not be any censorship at alH Mr. Bush. That is precisely what I mean to say. I wish to add that Ave ought to bear in mind the definition of censorship. It is the imposition of a previous legal restraint upon the pictures, not the suppression of the pictures, for if a i)icture constitutes a connnon nuisance or indecent exhibition, then, of course, it ought to Ue sup- pressed. Indeed, the laws on the statute books to-day are ample to deal with any such abuse of the liberty of the jjress or the liberty of the motion picture. Only a short time ago two men attemi)ted to exhibit films not calculated to c(unmend thenisehes t(> the sense of the conmiunity—indeed, to offend i^ublic decency. The two men, on Broadway, New York, were arrested, charged with having ccsnunitted a misdemeanor in gi\ ing those indecent exhibitions. They a^ked for a trial by jury. I'he district attorney was glad to agi'cc to it. He said that was what he wanted, to have 12 men. the [)eei's of the ac- cused, to pass upon the question of whether tiiey were guilty of com- mitting a misdemeanor in opeiating this exhibition. The men were tried by the jury and found guilty. Now. under those circumstances, what good will be accomplished by attemi)ting to impose a previous restraint upon the ])ictui-es^ I have been for the last six or seven years—and that practically means the histoiy of motion pictures—in innumerable studios, both here and abroad, and I ha\c been very close to exhibitors all through the length and breadth of this coun- try. I know just exactly how these men feel. Tlu\v are in all essen- tials very nnich like other liuman beings, anxious for profit, anxious to have return on their investment, and they know that it will not pay