The Moving picture world (April 1921)

April 16, 1921 MOVING PICTURE WORLD 685 New York Senate Chamber the Industry's Battle Against Censorship Sharp Questioning by Senator James Walker Brings Politics and Religion to Light that they were speaking as the representatives of the great mass of working people of New York State. Frayne's Argument "I am opposing this bill," said Mr. Frayne, "because I believe that the question of motion picture censorship is unnecessary. It is fraught with much danger. It is an open door for a legislative method which will give a police power over an industry. Two or three persons constituting the board of censors could practically destroy this giant industry in their judgment as to what is right and what is wrong. The great censorship board in the person of the American public will solve this problem and solve it right. "The American public is getting impatient with attempts being used, through legislative methods, to regulate practically everything they may do in their every-day life. The passage of this law will be harmful to a great army of wage earners who use the motion picture as their education and inspiration, as well as a recreational place to which they can go, not being able to pay the high prices charged by the theatres. It is my personal opinion that any picture that has been presented but which is not in accordance with established conventions has proven an absolute failure, financially and otherwise. We believe that it is not possible to pass legislation that will club people into being good. It is possible to educate them." Rex Beach for the Authors The Rev. L. H. Caswell, pastor of the Crawford Memorial Church, The Bronx, speaking in opposition to the bill, declared that he did not agree with the proposed method of correcting the bad pictures and encouraging the good. "We believe," said he, "that the appointment of that commission is an inroad upon the rights of American citizenship." There was a craning of necks when Rex Beach was introduced. Mr. Beach started by saying that he was president of the Authors League of America, that he came from Dobbs Ferry, was a member of the volunteer fire department of that village, but he had never run as fast to a fire as he had to the hearing, in the hope that he would be in time to do his part in putting this fire out. "We have no hesitancy, as authors," said Mr. Beach, "in going on record as being solidly opposed to state censorship as proposed by this bill. Censorship is iniquitous and unjust. It has failed and always will fail. We do not deny that bad pictures have been made. So have bad books been written, bad pictures painted and bad plays acted. Personally, I have never discovered any serious signs of disintegration of the moral fibre of the American people through this fact. We all agree that there are pictures that are not healthy. It does not follow, however, because some are unhealthy that the whole brood should be destroyed. "We are not opposed to reform in motion pictures. But we are opposed to the form of the reform proposed by this measure. Censorship is the product of the narrow-minded bigot whose ready armor is oppression. No three people can agree on what is moral and what is not. I do not believe that any $7,500 intellect is capable of censoring the morals of 10,000,000 people." Griffith Stirs Audience A hush spread over the room as Attorney Mclnerney announced David Wark Griffith as the next speaker. Mr. Griffith had been occupying a seat in the rear of the room and was known to only few, although practically everyone present knew that he was slated to be one of the speakers, and his very presence at the hearing probably attracted a great many. "I have had no time to prepare an address," said Mr. Griffith. "But I feel so deeply on this subject, so sincerely from the bottom of my heart, that no flow of oratory will be necessary, as I come here in this assembly, a citizen of the United States, and plead for free speech. Free speech includes all methods of expression. The right of free speech is guaranteed in our constitution. And yet they seek to curb this through censorship." "Weapon of Autocracy" "We believe that the business of the motion picture is decent. We do not say that there have been pictures which should never have been produced. There may have been. But there have been books that should not have been written and thoughts and words said that should not have been, but why tear down the very fabrics of free speech? When you allow three men to speak for 10,000,000, and you allow these three men to pass on pictures which have cost millions, it amounts to a great deal, perhaps not so much in the value of the dollars and cents as in the thought and the ideas that have been put into these pictures and which may be destroyed by censors without trial by jury. "Censorship is the weapon of autocracy. If you control the sources of information, the people do not know what is going on. I think as I think. Such is the law. Rivers of blood have flowed because the great masses did not think as one or two men dictated. Such is censorship. You must think as I think, or you are wrong. Two or three men must think for us. We have had enough in the experience that we have already had. First in Germany "Censorship of motion pictures' was established first in Germany, next in Russia. I do not observe that censorship led them to any great heights of civic reform. I am surprised to see that religious organizations are working for censorship. Do they not know that the Christian religion was censored ? Do they not know Censor Bill Is Reported The censorship bill granting to Commissioner of Public Safety Alfred F. Foote the drastic right to prohibit the exhibition in the state of any film which, in his personal judgment, might "tend to debase or corrupt the morals" of the people, was reported in the Massachusetts House by the legislative committee on municipal finance. Drastic censorship would begin in the state next January, under the terms of the bill. Every film would have to be submitted to Foote for his approval. He could condemn any part of a film or a film itself which, in his opinion, was "obscene, indecent, immoral, inhuman or such as tend to debase or corrupt morals or incite to crime." Fines ranging from $50 to $100 would be imposed for violations. The fines would be levied upon the Massachusetts exhibitors, not upon the producers. A charge of $2 for inspection of every 1,000 feet of film would be made by Foote's department. The appointment of a deputy director of moving picture censorship at $3,500 a year, " and a sufficient number of officers and clerks and other assistants to carry out the provisions of the act," is provided. The bill was sent to the House ways and means committee for a public hearing.