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)

208 MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION. The bill, on the whole, is desirable for eiiactiiieut into law at the present time, and the suggestions of the Assistant Attorney General that power be given to the commissioners to regulate these matters with a itenalty attached would be sutiicient, in the judgment of the counnissioners. Section 2 of the act, providing for the previous submission of all pictures and films to the conuuissioners for their approval, without the provision of additional machinery for such inspection, is at the present time impracticable. There is no way by whicli such iusiiection (■< uld he made, except through the Metropolitan Police Department, and the i: inber of motion-picture theaters has increased to such an extent, and the li ms chaugeil so frequently, as to require too much time for the police to exercise the necessary supervision. We recommend that section 2 of the act b;- amended by striking out the pro- vision requiring the previous submi.'jsion to the conuuissioners of such pictures and tilms, retaining simply the penalty. It is believed that his amendment, which leaves the commissioners the power to regulate and to punish, will carry out the purpose of the liill. Very respectfully. J>OAlU> OF COMMISSIONICUS OF DISTRICT OK ("Ol.TMP.IA. By CuNo PI. Rudolph. I'icshlcnt. Mayor Gaynor s message has already been .submitted to this com- mittee and read into the record, and I beg to refer this committee to that message. We believe that if the law" is ineffective in reaching the pictures that may be considered objectionable—the very small percentage of the pictures—the way to reach that is to amend the laws and make the laws effective. That is the American way of doing things and that is what Ave contend should be done. Punish the guilty, make the penalty a heavy one. and enforce the law rigidly, but do not .-ubject the entire industry to the burden and expense and injustice of cen- sorship. In closing. I Avish to say that it is unfair to submit to a few per- sons the right to do the thinking for the multitude. That right should remain inviolate and reserved to each citizen and should not be infringed upon. No one person should be clothed with authority to lay doAvn a code of morals or taste for the community. The censor will object to the picture because of some personal prejudice, and it Avill never be seen by his feUow man—common nu\n I should call him—for the censor Avould then have superior rights and he would be a superior person. The connnon man should have the absolute right of deciding for him.self whether he a]>pro\es or disapproves of the pictures which he is to see. Censors are only men with th.e frail- ties and weaknesses and prejudices of their fellow men. Will they never make mistakes? I beg to refer you to a (juotation from Shakespetire's Measure for Measure, which I think is quite apropo: But man. proud man. dressed in a little bi-ief .uuhinily. must i.i-'nor.-nu ot what he's most assured, his glassy essence like an angry ai^e. plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven as make the angels weep. I commend this, gentlemen, for your consideration. The CiiAiuM.vN. Before you take your seat, Mr. Schechter. I want to ask you one question. What do you think woidd be an equitable license fee per thousand feet in the event that this bill should pass? That is an important question for us to consider. Mr. Schechter. I would be very nuich disappointed in the intelli- gence of this committee if they shoidd pass this bill^ but as the ques- tion has been asked and in order to answer it intelligently, permit me