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. 97 and persuaded him that he had better reverse the major's orders, and I think the major's order was reversed. Tliat was simply on a par with other orders which he has given in the past and that we find is the ultimate result of all ofRcial censorship. Now, in regard to the case of the Metropolitan Magazine, which was referred to, I may say that the local postmaster, entirely with- out warrant of law, did seize the copies of that magazine on the day they were to be sent through the mails, although there was nothing to justify him in doing so. The publishers immediately appealed, by telephone, to the Post Office Department at AVashington and the magazines were released. In regard to the question of the present status, as to Avhether they are censoring now in the Post Office De- partment, I shall speak a little later. There is one peculiar thing tliat runs through the entire discussion of censorship, and that is that but one justification, and only one, is advanced for it, and that is the children. Nobody ventures to say that censoring of pictures to be shown to the adults is necessary; nobody has the temerity to say that the American ])ublic will be corrupted by motion pictures or that they will for a moment stand for licentious motion pictures. The discussion this evening with respect to particular films was a discussion as to whether the film is the proper uiedium for the promulgation of certain doctrines. The film that is indecent per se, or inherently indecent, is nonexistent in this country, and the theory of those M'ho desire censorship is that it is the only means of protect- ing the children from seeing what we think are nonexistent—that is to say, films that will corrupt them. I shall endeavor to show, first, that censorship is not a proper means of accomplishing this result, which is a proper result; in the second place, even if it were the remedy, it is by far more dangerous than the disease. It is a peculiar thing that the protection of children is sought in a Federal enactment. That is peculiarly a function of the State, and that is a function which, no matter what the Federal Government may do, and no matter what statutes may be put on the books by Congress, the States will never surrender. I think it speaks for itself that the States will never permit the opinions of Congress and the decisions of Congress to govern them with respect to what they shall do for the children within their borders. Nor is it any reason for saying tliat although som.e States have censorship of motion- picture films, that their views as to such censorship shall be enforced on the States which have refused to have censorship. The State of New Jersey was offered censorship and rejected it. The bill which was proposed for that State never got out of the committee, never got to the legislature, although it was much discussed. The State of jVIassachusetts was offered censorship. The committee of the legislatui-e which at first was unanimously in favor of the bill, eventmilly reported unanimously against it. In New York State there have been several such attempts. Why should the ideas of some States relative to the proper meth- ods for protecting children be the basis of ccmgressional action any more than the States which desire censorship should agree to accept a brand of consorship wliich Congress may provide?