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 COMMISSIOlS. 229 statement in the bill defining the moral standards under which the commission would work. The national board understands the criticism of motion pictures from actual experience. It is the only agency which has attempted to work on a national scale. For five years, it has continuously examined the bulk of the films put on the market. It does not speak from theory but from extended experience. There are several fundamental differences between the work of the national board and the proposed Federal commission. The National Board of Censorship operates on the basis of agreement with the manufacturers and importers of motion pictures to submit all their pro- ductions and abide by decisions. It is a wise business policy on the part of the manufacturers which accepts one unbiased criticism rather than a multi- tude in the cities of the country. Federal censorship is compulsory. It oi>er- ates under law. The decision of the censors is binding and there can be no appeal to the people of the country. The national board is composetl of a large number of skilled [persons and offers to the manufacturer the right of ai»peal to a higher court of public opinion. The proposed Federal censorship is conducted by five commissioners from whom there is no appeal. The national board conducts its work through 145 volunteers who fairly represent public opinion. They are carefully chosen from those who have the judicial temperament, interest in people, entire disinterestedness, an under- standing of the appeal of motion pictures. The proposed Federal board lodges in five i)ersons the power to pass yearly on 9,000,0<X) feet of film for 100,000,000 j>eople. The national board finds it important to obtain constantly the various points of view of its 145 members with the assistance of experts. In pi-actice the work of the Federal commission would largely be done by one commissioner and on most doubtful questions the decisions would come from five individuals who are huuinu and i)rone to error. Federal censorship of motion pictures is not needed. There is no form of commercial amusement as widespread as motion-picture entertainments which are as wholesome, as inspiring, as free from objectionable features and as full of educational and cultural subjects. All attempts to criticise motion pictures unfavorably have been based on theory or with undue emphasis placed upon a fractional "per cent of harmful pictures. Closely allied to the censorship of films is the question of the physical surroundings in the motion-picture houses. If Federal censorship is under- taken, the inevitable result will be the checking of local initiative. I^ocal ordi- nances dealing with light, ventilation, fire exits, public safety, and vaudeville will not be pushed. Undoubtedly physical and mural dangers will remain throughout the country in their present chaotic condition. The Federal board is not constituted to deal with these subjects. The impression will become general that all matters dealing with motion pictures'can safely be left in their hands. The arguments by which the national board has arrived at its conclusions are as follows: CONSTITUTIONALITV. There are reasons to doubt the constitutionality of any such bill which would tend under law to restrict the freedom of speech. The motimi picture belongs to the same class as the newspaper, the book, periodical, and play. It has always been adjudged sufficient to proceed against objectionable newspaper and magazine articles, plays, and pictures after they have caused offense to the public. This freedom of speech has been guarded throughout the history of the nations. Assuming that this fundamental objection will be overcome in some way not now apparent, there remain objections in detail which, in the judgment of the National Board of Censorship, are practically conclusive. POLITICS. The bill (S. 4941) under discussion provides that the commissioners shall be appointed by the President. He is the head of his party even though he is President of the Nation. It would be next to impossible to keep politics, as contrasted with social service, out of the appointments of connnissioners, since