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. 231 impartial board of independent people. This work naturally progresses slowly, but it represents substantial and effective education at the point of production. Since it would be bound by legal precedent and decisions, the Federal board would be unable to offer to the manufacturers, the exhibitors, and the public positive constructive criticisiu. PATERNALISM IN MORALS. Public opinion and discussion do much to settle controversial points. There are always groups who hold to realism and large freedom for the individual. These believe in public discussion. There are those also who emphasize reticence. Innocence appears desirable. They are called by their fellows " puritanical." Those who belong to this group will suppress much for the protection of the child, the woman, the weak, and the immigrant. Funda- mentally, they do not believe in the ability of society to protect itself or to decide moral questions. Between these extremes of liberality and conserva- tism lie the rank and file of the American people. Critics of motion pictures who believe in democracy, who have strong principles based on experience, and who look with clear and understanding eyes upon the subjects as they appear On the screen must expect adverse criticism. Moral questions will never be solved for the whole people. There will always be those who disagree. This applies not only to unofficial voluntary censorship, but is what the Federal censors will have to expect. If such a bill were passed, after the novelty had worn off and the decisions of the Federal board were given publicity, indignant groups of citizens would insist that this work be supplemented by city and State boards. When one appreciates the foreign population, the extent of the country, and the variety of social clas.ses in the Untied States, he must con- cede to various communities modifications of a minimum national standard. LEGAL CENSORSHIP OPPRESSIVE AND LiNNECESSARY. There are many subjects which can not come within the scope of Federal censorship as defined by law which are the everyday subjects for criticism by a nouofficlal cooi>erative group like the national board of censorship Be- cause of its friendly agreements with the manufacturers and in its representa- tion of public opinion, it can easily handle many of these questions. They lie within the realm of taste. They are sometimes vulgar. They may deal with questions vf dress. The comedy element may be distinctly low. They may present controversial themes in delicate or indelicate ways. They may be harmful to certain elements of the community. While acceptable in certain sections they may provoke sectional prejudices. They may not come under the " ban " but deal with " low life." They may present questionable and prolonged love «cenes. They may present the three-cornered problem of infidelity. All these and many other subjects come within the scope of a board working in the interests of the public without legal standing. It can be predicted with confidence that a Federal board would be unable to handle satisfactorily this class of film subjects. JUDGING FOR THE WHOLE PUBLIC. The conditions of exhibition of plays and motion pictures in the United States make impossible any segregation of pictures which are dangerous to certain groups while they are entirely satisfactory for others. The same picture goes to the whole American audience of men and women, young and old. This means that any censorship provision does violence to many classes of people who are abundantly able to express their objections. They would regard such censor- ship as an unfriendly attack. UNIVERSAL PUBLIC ):NLIGHTENMENT. The American public is intolerant of judgments superimposed by any class. With our American system of education there has been developed throughout the country general moral as well as intellectual independence. The people are quick to detect those things which are objectionable. Their condemnation is expressed in many ways. They refuse to read certain classes of books. They have recourse to the law. They frown upon immoral plays so that they become