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.

218 MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION. censorship already approved and authorized by this Congress and the President. If strict construction is to be followed, and appeal to a shallow prejudice against the word '' censorship " must be answered, it should be noted that the Smith-Hughes bill has not a word in it about cen- sorship. It is a bill to establish a motion-picture commission to "license" films fit to be seen, denying to all others copyright and interstate-commerce priviliges. This motion-picture commission was suggested by the success of the kindred Interstate Commerce Commission. The motion-picture commission aims to regulate interstate films in certain particulars as the Interstate Commerce Commission aims to regulate interstate trains for the protection of the public in certain particulars. And in view of the fact that the only opposition to this bill, except what comes from those financially interested in films, comes from some of the New York City welfare workers connected with the unofficial " na- tional board of censorship," it is pertinent to submit an instructive supposition. Suppose railroad companies representing 96 per cent of the mile- age, when popular outcry against railroad abuses was strong, had themselves promoted the organization of an unofficial advisory na- tional boarcl for correction of railroad abuses, and had persuaded a large group of social-beterment organizations and philanthropists to form such a " board," and had paid a small salary to four of them who must give all their time to the work, relying for all additional service on unpaid helpers, all of them busy at other tasks. And suppose that this ''board of railroad correction," though bettering the situation through advice accepted by the railroads, had so far failed to give satisfactory relief to the public, that official and un- official State and local boards had been numerously organized to do the very work this " national board " had attempted. And suppose a bill were pending in Congress to establish such an official Interstate Commerce Commission as we now have. And suppose the only oppo- sition, other than that of the railroads, came through the salaried officials of this unofficial " board." And suppose that the attorneys of the railroads argued before committees of Congress that they wanted no regulation, but if they must have it they preferred the unofficial " board." Is there a welfare worker in New York who would think the vol- unteer " board of railroad correction," which the railroads themselves preferred, a better agency for correcting railroad abuses than the official Intestate Commerce Commission? The chief argument that the salaried officers of the " national board of censorship" use in New York against the proposed Federal commission is that unofficial censors are more reliable and incor- ruptible than " political, censors " would be—^in reply to which we point again to the spotless record of the Interstate Commerce Com- mission. I do not for a moment believe that the welfare societies of New York Cit}^, when they understand the situation, will oppose a bill which other branches of the same oiganizations all over the land are demanding, because the censorship that now exists is generally con- sidered as wholly inadequate. One preacher from New York City