To prohibit and to prevent the trade practices known as "compulsory block-booking" and "blind selling" of motion-picture films in interstate and foreign commerce .. (1939)

I'^r'^i'' TRADE PRACTICES IN MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY 3 No quarrel with the mere statement of such purposes is possible. It appears from the testimony that many of the organized public groups who have been persuaded to endorse the bill relied entirely upon this statement of purpose without attempting to analyze or understand the enforceable sections of the bill upon which the carrying out of these purposes depend. It is not surprising that these earnest people should be in favor of the stated purposes set forth in the first section of the bill. It is our responsibility in voting upon the bill to examine the more important sections, however, that will be applied to this industry under penalties by the bill. It should be reahzed that this bill if enacted as a Federal statute will apply to all motion pictures, those that receive the highest praise as well as those which the witnesses testifying in favor of the bill seek to criticize, and to all producers, distributors, and exMbitors of motion pictures, regardless of whether their business conduct is good or bad, subject to criticism or praise. Moreover, the charges of monopolistic and biu'densome trade practices are subject to proof in the courts, which have adequate facilities for weighing evidence and testimony of this nature and the power to coiTect any abuses found, and such charges and complaints are being tried in court actions constantly. It is not contended that the present laws are defective to prohibit monopohes. The discussion with regard to these purposs must therefore center about questions of what may be deemed fact ; namely, is there an absence of "community freedom" in the selection of motion pictures today? Are exhibitors oppressed by a burdensome and monopolistic trade practice from which they should be relieved? The phrase "community freedom of selection" in relation to motion pictures shown throughout the land, and throughout the world, is a slogan; a catchword. The proponents of the bill in connection with this slogan have offered other appealing slogans and catchwords. For instance the statement that "the bill is founded on the Ameiican principle of home rule," and to the effect that centralized control of education is repugnant to the American public, that public schools are indigenous to the local coinmunities which they serve; and that motion pictures are an important medium of education, from which the proponents conclude that the industry should come under the regulations of the bill. The fault is not in the concepts, but in the reasoning to support the conclusion asserted. Slogans and phrases should, before being accepted as conclusive, be examined and analyzed to see what they have as their inarticulate premises. Nowhere in the testimony of the many witnesses before the subcommittee is it claimed that at present there is in fact no "community selection" or no "home rule" in motion-picture entertainment, nor is there attempted an appraisal of how much there is of whatever is meant by these labels and how much there is not. This is of first importance in connection with the stated purpose of the bill. Only by inference does it appear that there is in fact an absence of "community selection" or of "home rule" in motionpicture entertainment. The sponsors do not claim that the people of the community are forced or compelled to attend motion-picture theaters to the exclusion of other forms of entertainment offered, or that they are compelled to attend at any particular performance, or compelled to attend at any