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)

190 MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION. Let us first consider section 11 of the bill, which reads: That no motion-picture film which has not l)een licensed by the commission and which does not bear its seal and is nut accompanied by its certificate shall be exhibited in any licensed place of amusement for pay or in connection with any business in the District of Columl)ia or in any of the Territories of the United States, or any place under the jurisdiction of the United States. If I did not personally entertain the impression that Canon Chase was actuated by the most laudable motives, I might be tempted to say that section of the bill was put in there by him in consultation with, and suggestions of. the past masters of legal quibbling. But of course the worthy canon could not be accused of that. The practical effect of that section would throw such discredit upon this bill as to make it a subject of laughable comment. It means that in effect there would be one law for the rich and one law for the poor. The rich, able to purchase these pictures, would be permitted at their clubs and private homes to show uncensored pictures; and the poor—the great majority of the people—unable to arrange private exhibitions, would be peruiitted to see only censored pictures. A splendid example of class legislation. Dr. Crafts and Canon Chase both point with pride to the fact that this bill is different from all other censor-;hip bills which have been introduced in several of the States, because it allows to be exhibited uncensored films, when such exhibitions are made in places where no fee is charged for admission. I call this conmiittee's attention to the fact that this bill would lend itself to the practical recognition of the exhibition of obscene and immoral pictures when exhibited at places where no charge is made for admission, when heretofore such exhibition was a criminal act under any circumstances, whether exhibited for pa}' or other- wise. Canon Chase's definition of censorship is another good reason for the nonpassage of this bill, lie affirms that under this bill there will not be true censorsliip. but that the ceusor will be a licensor, and argues that it will not amount to more than a license to exhibit such censored films. I fail to see any difference between the terms as here used. I believe in calling a spade a spade. There is no question that the censors appointed i)ursuant to this bill would have the absolute power to disallow the exiiibition of any picture which, in th.eir censorious opinions, ought not to be exhibited. That is not a questicm of li- cense; that is censorship in the true sense of the word; for in refusing to license a picture they certainly will censor it. Does not Canon Chase in that way admit, and is not his statement tantamount to an admission that censorship is unconstitutional, else why should he fear the word censorship'^ If it is the desire of the committee, I will novr take up and illus- trate the impracticability of some of the sections of the bill. Mr. TowNKK. There are two or three matters I would like to call your attention to before you go on further. I want to call your attention to the i-egulations of the board of censors of Quebec, Canada. Before films may be shown in Quebec