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. 233 Altliougb the national board does not represent society, it approximates the decision of society. The elements both conservative and liberal are harmonized in the course of such frank discussion. The will of the majority carries. Coincident with the nerve strain should also be considered the eye strain attendant upon the steady criticism of pictures. Unless the worli is divided, a point is reached with the most conscientious critic when«he is unable to fairly estimate moral values. In any discussion of motion-picture censorshij) this practical detail must be emphasized. CENSORSHIP INTENSELY HUMAN. The national board frankly acknowledges that it does not reach 100 per cent of the motion-picture tield. It is. however, continually criticizing over 95 per cent, and is increasingly proving to tlie irresponsble and more recent manu- facturers that its indorsement is necessary. The national board is a human institution dealing with problems of controversy which have been in existence throughout the ages of organized society. It retlects a public opinion which constantly varies. As society formulates intelligent theories and principles of conduct, it must inevitably alter its decisions. The board freely grants differ- ences of opinion to various classes and to various constituent parts of the Nation. It also agrees that some of its decisions may wrongly interpret the will of society. It does not assume omniscience. Since the national board is working for the entire country, it appreciates the importance of cooperative local criticism. The following plan has therefore been suggested and has been adopted in many cities. A WORKING ARRANGEMENT. The board issues each Saturday an entire list of motion-picture subjects re- viewed during the week with the action taken upon each. These bulletins are sent throughout the country. Local authorities and censor boards are en- couraged to make use of these bulletins and to concentrate their attention upon pictures which have been criticized for eliminations or changes, which have been condemned in toto, and for those pictures which have not been submitted to the board, but which have been listed for release and sale. The board agrees to bring pressure to bear upon the producers of objectionable and immoral films when they ai-e reported to it. They also call to the attention of local authori- ties those pictures which may be regarded as demoralizing. It urges on local authorities the wisdom of legal action when pictures are exhibited which violate the standards of a given community. Authority is vested in mayors, licensing authorities, the police, and the courts to immediately suppress such pictures. This furnishes a plan of cooperation, a flexibility, and a local re- sponsibility which are not included in the plan of the Federal censorshp. The New York Tribune, under date of May 3, 1914, says in part as follows; •'A bill has been introduced into Congress to create a National ^Motion Pic- ture Commission. Senator Hoke Smith and Congressman Hughes, both of Georgia, are the sponsors. The bill proposes that every motion picture which goes into interstate commerce be previously inspected and passed by a com- mission of five men sitting in Washington, and that no film be allowed to be sho\yn outside of the State in which it is made unless it bears this commis- sion's stamp of approval. " The mechanical ditficulties alone are suflicient to make this bill, as at pres- ent framed, extremely undesirable. So rapid is the output of film in this coun- try that each of the five commissioners would have to inspect difCerent pic- tures. This would result iu making one man the judge of what is suitable for the entire country's entertainment. "Paults of this nature can be passed over in considering the bill, because there are so many other vital objections. In the first place, the con.stitution- ality of the Smith-Hughes bill is decidedly doubtful. It is the opinion of many prominent legal authorities that the United States Supreme Court, should the bill be passed, would decide that the law violated the constitutional guaranty of the right of all persons to a free expression of their beliefs and sentiments. " The need of any censorship is growing less every year, but to do away with it entirely would not be wise just now. Yet this is virtually what would result if the Smith-Hughes bill should become a law. Paradoxical as it may seem, this attempt to improve censorship would practically do away with it. How- ever reluctant the film makers might be to see it happen the passage of the