UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
SCHOOL OF LAW
LIBRARY
MOTION PICTURES
A Study
In Social Legislation
BY
DONALD YOUNG, PH.D.
WHARTON SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
PRINTED BY
WESTBROOK PUBLISHING CO.
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
1922
MOTION PICTURE itt M O
366 MADISON AVEN
NEW YORK, N
LARRY EDMUNDS BOOKSHOP
6658 HOLLYWOOD BLVD
HOLLYWOOD 28. CALIF.
HO. 3-3273
WORLD'S LARGEST COLLECTION
OF BOOKS ON MOTION PICTURES
T
Co
CONTENTS
PAGE
I
MOTION PICTURES AS A FACTOR IN AMERICAN ENVIRONMENT 1
II
SOCIAL STANDARDS OF THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY AND THE PUBLIC. . . 8
III
CONFORMITY OF MOTION PICTURES TO THE ACCEPTED SOCIAL STANDARDS . 2 1
IV
EFFECTS OF MOTION PICTURES ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 34
V
THE NATIONAL BOARD OF REVIEW OF MOTION PICTURES 42
VI
FEDERAL LEGISLATION 53
VII
LOCAL LEGISLATION; Municipal Regulation 60
VIII
LOCAL LEGISLATION; State Boards of Censorship 64
IX
SUMMARY . . 82
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 1
I
MOTION PICTURES AS A FACTOR IN AMERICAN ENVIRONMENT
"THREE billion is our estimate of the annual admissions to
motion picture houses in the United States," says an official of
the Famous Players-Lask^y Corporation, one of the most impor-
tant motion picture producing corporations in the world. An
editor of the Motion Picture News, one of the leading American
trade journals, believes that a more accurate estimate is four
billion for the yearly attendance, with a corresponding daily
attendance of from twelve to fifteen million, or approximately
one-eighth of the entire population of the country per day. The
United States Federal Trade Commission in a recent investiga-
tion of the industry decided that a daily attendance of twenty
million was not an unreasonable estimate. ' This would lead to
the conclusion that the annual attendance approaches six billion,
a total twice as great as that offered by Famous Players-Lask^y. *
There seems to be little or no conclusive evidence to support any
of these estimates. For our purposes their importance lies not
in their absolute accuracy, but in the fact that men in responsible
positions, men who are best qualified to express opinions on the
subject, are willing to estimate the industry as one of the leading
enterprises in the country with a patronage many times the total
population of the country.
An annual motion picture directory claims to have listed
20,006 motion picture theatres with addresses, in addition to
3,673 other theatres which present motion pictures not ex< lusively
but as a side line supplementing a traveling company business. *
1 United States Federal Trade Commission, Docket Number 835, August
30, 1921, Washington, D. C.
2 A fairly reliable estimate places the daily attendance for 1916 between
eight and ten million. The apparent increase is significant. See House of
"Representatives, Hearings before the Committee on Education, January 13-19,
1916, p. 203.
Julius Cahn, Gus Hill, Theatrical Guide and Motion Picture Directory, 1921,
and Supplement for 1922.
2 MOTION PICTURES
The territory covered by these 23,679 theatres, however, includes
Canada, Porto Rico and Alaska, as well as the United States
proper. Wid's Daily, a paper devoted entirely to motion picture
news, estimates that there are about 14,000 recognized motion
picture theatres in the United States, according to a statement
made by the business manager. An editor of the Motion Picture
News agrees with this estimate. The publicity director of the
National Association of the Motion Picture Industry, Inc., is
unable to make any more definite estimate than to say that the
number varies from 14,000 to 17,000. The Federal Trade Com-
mission has decided on the larger figure of 18,000 established
motion picture theatres in the United States. * Building permits
show more than 2,700 new theatres in the course of construction. *
Again we find that no agreement exists concerning motion picture
statistics. On the basis of such scattering information as is
available it is probable that 18,000 is a closer guess than any of
the other guesses which have been considered. 3 The seating
capacity of these theatres varies from 200 or less to over 5,000,
though there are only a few that come near the latter figure.
It is easily seen that the motion picture as a part of our idea-
forming environment is not a factor to be neglected.
In order to demonstrate that motion pictures are not a mere
local phenomenon thriving only in the United States, attention
may be called to the Australian statistics for the year 1920.
"The total attendance at motion picture theatres during the last
year was 67,466,657, or more than thirteen times the entire
population of the country, while the revenues paid to the state
in the form of taxes were almost half the entire sum collected
from all amusement enterprises during the year." The total
attendance at all amusements in Australia during the year was
1 United States Federal Trade Commission, Docket Number 835, August
30, 1921, Washington, D. C.
1 Moving Picture World, Vol. 51, No. 7, August 13, 1921, p. 689.
3 See appendix A for detailed information concerning the number and
distribution of motion picture theatres.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 3
95,866,620, or about nineteen times the entire population, which
in round numbers was 5,000,000. l
It is hardly necessary that any similar figures be quoted for
European and other countries. It is not within the scope of
this work to outline the international development of the industry
except when such an exposition would aid in interpreting its
development in this country. For that purpose it is sufficient
to say that the development of motion pictures has been practi-
cally the same throughout the civilized world, though more
gradual in some places than in others. 2
Pick up almost any issue of any trade journal, and considerable
space will be found to be devoted to the importance of foreign
competition, to the lessons taught by the experience of foreign
producers and exhibitors. The Exhibitors' Herald, Motion
Picture News, Exhibitors' Trade Review, Moving Picture World,
and Wid's Daily, the leading motion picture trade journals, are
constantly fighting existing and proposed tariff measures on raw
and exposed film for import and export. The competition of
English, Italian, Belgian and German producers is being care-
fully watched by these journals. They do not consider motion
pictures an American institution with a few parallel developments
in foreign countries. They recognize that the American industry,
while it may have progressed more rapidly in so far as its size
is concerned, is not economically, mechanically or artistically
independent, but is a part of a much broader movement.
It has been shown that motion pictures are an important part
of the environment of the people of this country, and of those
1 Moving Picture World, Vol. 51, No. 8, August 20, 1921, p. 790.
1 The export and import figures in Appendix B, taken from the United
States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce,
Commerce Reports, January 2, 1922, pp. 34 and 35, emphasize the rapid
growth of the international interdependence of motion picture interests.
4 MOTION PICTURES
of other civilized countries as well. l The statistics quoted in
support of this contention are in many cases of questionable
accuracy due to the fact that the development of the industry
has been both rapid and recent, but they are the best available,
and are vouched for by leading members of the trade, men who
have been in positions to know conditions. In no case, except-
ing the import and export figures of the United States Department
of Commerce, were any estimates included unless at least two
other estimates were used as checks on their accuracy. The
highest estimate was never quoted, no matter how plausible
were the arguments on which it was based. In some cases we
have figures which are possibly too high. In other cases, we
may have been too conservative. It is worthy of remark, how-
ever, that the recent findings of the United States Federal Trade
Commission are as optimistic as are the trade statements which
have been quoted in this report. The material is significant
because responsible men are willing to issue statistics showing
the industry to be of such great size, and do so without fear of
radical refutation. In the last analysis, for that matter, such
statistics are not essential in so far as we are here concerned
except as a general indication of the extent of the motion picture's
influence for purposes of comparison with other idea -forming
1 Owing to the recent and rapid development of the motion picture industry ,
and the consequent rarity of authoritative and comprehensive works on the
problems connected with it, it has been deemed inadvisable to attempt to
include a bibliography as a part of this study. Anyone who may wish to go
more deeply into the subject is referred to the following lists of references
which, while'not so extensive as might possibly be desirable, afford a starting
point for further readings:
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education, "List of References on the
Use of Pictures in Education," Library Leaflet No. 13, December, 1920,
Washington, D. C.
Cannon, Lucius H., "Motion Pictures, Laws, Ordinances and Regulations."
Contains a list of references compiled by Melitta Diez Peschke, St. Louis
Public Library, July, 1920. This list has been reproduced in Wid's Year
Book for 1920, p. 288b.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 5
institutions, for the great attendance at the numerous motion \
picture theatres in the United States is so well known that it
needs no proof.
This important industry is of interest to society from three
points of view. First, there are the problems of production,
distribution and exhibition. These problems, however, concern
us here only in so far as they have some direct bearing on the
social as distinguished from the economic questions involved in
a study of motion pictures. For example, the mechanics of
photography and projection in themselves have no significance
in a social study, but it is of considerable importance to know
that practically all inventions of mechanisms which have per-
mitted the establishment of the present industry have been
made in the past twenty years. 1 The allegation of the Federal
Trade Commission that a controlling interest in the industry is
concentrated in one small central group of men is primarily
an economic question, but it is an economic question which has
social aspects which are evident when one stops to think that,
due to this concentration, it may be within the power of a very
few men to say what type of picture will be shown in a majority
of theatres, and that the pictures produced by these same men
will be shown, though not exclusively, in 98 per cent, of the
theatres of this country, according to their own advertisements.
The economic side, while not our primary interest, may have
a distinct bearing on the social aspects of motion pictures.
Secondly, there is the problem of the health of the patrons-
Controversies concerning the effect of motion pictures on the eyes ^
have been common in recent years, and still seem to be unsettled I
though the weight of opinion inclines in favor of the harmlessness \
of motion pictures except in the comparatively few instances J
1 An appreciation of the rapid development of the motion picture may be
gained by reading any of the innumerable magazine articles of ten or fifteen
years ago describing its wonders, and comparing the facts there presented
with the well-known achievements of today. An example of the old type of
article is one by Charles B. Brewer, The Widening Field of the Moving
Picture, Century, Vol. LXXXVI, No. 1, May, 1913.
6 MOTION PICTURES
where eyesight is badly defective to begin with. Minute
regulations intended to protect the patrons from the dangers
incident to fires in public places are provided by every state and
city in the form of state laws, city ordinances or the edicts of
local authorities. Building regulations usually specify a minimum
of ventilation. The problem of sanitation is not a simple one.
The fact that all theatres in infected areas were closed by govern-
ment order during the recent influenza epidemic is an indication
of the importance of this side of the question. However, such
problems are technical medical and building problems, and
mainly administrative. They do not fall within the scope of a
social study of this nature.
Finally, we have the problems of social standards, of ideals, of
morals. Social standards are influenced by motion pictures by
the pictures themselves, that is, by the mental impressions
received by the audiences from the screen portrayals of life, and
by the peculiar physical conditions imposed by motion picture
theatres on the patrons. There is an undoubted effect on
standards of conduct resulting from the fact that the audience,
often young boys and girls, are packed in narrow seats, close
together, in a darkened room. l New words and phrases are
; coined only to meet new situations, and it is significant that the
; phrases, "movie masher" and "knee flirtation" are coming into
use.
It is, therefore, with the effects of the pictures themselves on
those who view them that we have to deal. The other phases
are equally important, but of a different nature. The problems
of social standards resulting from the physical features of
motion picture houses, such as those arising from close seating in
semi-darkened theatres, are almost wholly administrative, as
1 "No one considering the effect of moving pictures can neglect the possi-
bilities for bad behavior which occur through the darkness of the hall in
which the pictures are shown. Under cover of dimness, evil communications
readily pass and bdd habits are taught. Moving picture theatres are favorite
places for the teaching of homosexual practices." Healy, Wm., The Indi-
vidual Delinquent, p. 308.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 7
as are the problems of the elimination of fire, mob, building and
health risks. In principle it is generally agreed that such risks
should be minimized.
No such agreement exists in the consideration of the effect of
the pictures on those who see them. The industry, the educators,
the churchmen, the general public, all are divided and fighting
among themselves over questions of principle involved. The
method of fighting in vogue is that of flat contradiction of fact,
although the facts do not seem to be difficult to obtain if wanted.
Possibly they are not wanted. There is indeed no question but
that many elemental facts, some of which it is inconceivable that
anyone financially interested in the industry can have over-
. looked, have either been overlooked or deliberately disregarded.
One of these, for example, is the undoubted constitutionality of
censorship through the previewing of pictures. Though there
have been two Supreme Court decisions on this question, many
debaters against censorship use the plea of unconstitutionality
as one of their main arguments. As a result of such attitudes
it is necessary to study the facts themselves, and there are plenty
available for study, rather than to argue on a basis of pure
principle, if any sound conclusions are to be reached.
MOTION PICTURES
II
SOCIAL STANDARDS OF THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY
AND THE PUBLIC
I IT was one of the original purposes of this paper to develop a
set of social standards whereby to judge the deviation of life
as portrayed on the screen from normal conduct, and then to
determine the probable social effects of the existing types of
, motion pictures. With this end in view, letters were written to
various legal boards of censorship asking for the rules by which
they judged films. Pennsylvania sent a detailed printed state-
ment of acts and situations which were not permitted in pictures
passed by its board of censorship. Ohio, on the other hand,
maintained that a request for standards was impossible of
fulfilment, on the grounds that no absolute standards could be
established, and that even if any were established, adherence to
them would be folly. Other replies received were similar to
one or the other of these two. Upon further investigation,
however, it is noticed that those boards of censorship which do
issue formal standards specifically reserve the right to disregard
them whenever they deem it necessary. The Pennsylvania
board, for example, in the explanations of several of its pro-
hibitions, carefully mentions that they are not absolute, but
merely indicative of what the board believes desirable in most
cases. No case can be judged without reference to factors
outside of the picture which might alter its desirability. This
is the reason why practically all municipal and state censorship
legislation merely provides that "indecent", "obscene", "las-
civious", "filthy," "unlawful", "sacrilegious", or "immoral"
scenes shall be eliminated, instead of making more definite
provision concerning specific undesired acts. It would be folly
for them to make more definite provision, especially in view of
the fact that the courts have held that the above terms are
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 9
sufficiently definite for ordinary purposes. 1 Fixed standards,
rigidly applied, due to the fact that proper social standards are
the result of and vary with the environment, are an impossibility.
The discussion concerning motion picture standards has been
kept alive by four groups of people. These are, first, the mem-
bers of the industry itself; second, the legal authorities who super-
vise the showing of motion pictures; third, miscellaneous organiza-
tions which have interested themselves in motion picture reform;
and, fourth, the National Board of Review, which must be given
a separate place in this classification on account of its unique
character. It is true that there also has been considerable
general discussion of the subject, but such discussion has accom-
plished little that is tangible except where it has developed into
or allied itself with one of the groups mentioned above. The
value of such general criticisms and suggestions, however, should
not be underestimated on this account. It is undoubtedly
largely responsible, for instance, for the formation and continu-
ance of the National Board of Review. It has also probably
caused a considerable change in the programs of the members
of the industry. It is omitted only because its views are well
represented by those of the groups mentioned. This being true,
a discussion of the standards advocated by the groups mentioned
will be sufficiently inclusive and representative to show
whether or not any general and fundamental disagreement
concerning socially undesirable film plays is discernible.
The members of the trade are probably the largest organized,
actively interested group of all. They have spent great amounts
of time, effort and money in endeavoring to ascertain what
should and what should not be shown on the screen. Naturally
their purpose has not been to make certain that the public
morals do not suffer from what is seen in the movies. The
producer, the distributor, the exhibitor, all are in the business to
1 See, for example; Jake Block, Nathan Wolf, et al., vs. The City of Chicago,
239 Illinois Supreme Court Reports, 251; Mutual Film Corporations. Indus-
trial Commission of Ohio, 236 U. S. Supreme Court Reports, 240.
10
MOTION PICTURES
\ make money, and the motion picture that they will show will be
| and is the one they believe will draw the largest crowd. l
In any competitive business enterprise, the ultimate goal must
be the greatest possible number of sales. The motion picture
industry is not an industry apart from the others. We cannot
' blindly censure the producer for making pictures the exhibitors
will buy or rent at the highest prices nor can we censure the
exhibitor for showing the picture he believes the public wants,
; ' so long as there is reasonable doubt as to their social effect, and
|we must assume that such doubt exists when federal, state and
I local officials do not use the power they have to prevent the
exhibition of all films which are unquestionably contrary to
' public policy. Even though we could frown upon such mercenary
conduct, we could not reasonably expect or hope that many
men would voluntarily ruin highly profitable enterprises in
1 The attitude of at least some leading motion picture producers is indicated
by the following quotations:
"Several weeks ago I published a straight-from-the-shoulder talk entitled
'Which Do You Want?' asking the exhibitors of America whether they
preferred clean, wholesome pictures or smutty ones. Instead of discovering
that 95 per cent, favored clean pictures, I discovered that at least half, and
maybe 60 per ce'nt. want the pictures to be 'risque', which is a French way
of saying 'smutty'. The whole thing was an eye-opener, so totally different
from what I expected that I am stumped! The Universal does not pose as a
guardian of public morals or of public taste. For that reason it is quite
possible that we may put out a picture that is off-color now and then as a
feeler. We have no such picture yet, but it is easy to make them." Carl
Laemm^le, President of Universal Film Manufacturing Company, in Moving
Picture Weekly, November, 1915, quoted by Chase, William Sheafe, Catechism
on Motion Pictures, New York City, 1921.
Similar statements by equally prominent motion picture production officials
may be found in an article by Mr. B. B. Hampton in the Pictorial Review,
February, 1921, and the Congressional Hearings on House of Representatives
Bill 456, January 13-19, 1916. Careful reading of articles in the leading
trade papers seems to indicate that the type of attitude expressed by the
above quotation is becoming less frequent, or at least it is an attitude no
longer so freely aired.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 11
order to be on the safe side of an argument which is far from
settled.
The motion picture industry is avowedly attempting to
present the types of pictures which the audiences wish to see.
This is evidenced by the fact that the different types of houses
show different types of pictures. For example, the motion
picture houses are divided into two classes, the neighborhood
houses and downtown houses. Neighborhood houses include
all those which are in outlying parts of cities or in the smaller
cities and villages. "Million dollar spectacles" are shown primarily
in the downtown houses, i. e., those centrally located in large
cities, because it has been found that if they are to be successful,
such pictures must derive most of their income from the audiences
which frequent the downtown houses. Many actors are known
to be excellent drawing cards in the neighborhood theatre, while
in the centrally located theatre their pictures are failures. In
reporting on the drawing ability of a picture, the exhibitor is
usually asked to mention the type of audience to which it was
shown. The president of one of the largest chains of theatres
in this country remarked recently to the author that "the
downtown audiences will stand for a lot more sex stuff than the
neighborhood audience, and they expect it, too." We may safely
say that the industry is trying to give its customers what they
want, even though they may want questionable products. l
1 This not uncommon statement, that the motion picture interests are
giving the public what it wants, is largely true, but is worthy of comment as
an argument against censorship only to show that, as the Lancaster (Pa.)
Law and Order Society pointed out in an open letter to Governor Sproul of
Pennsylvania, dated November 29, 1920, this is a condemning admission,
for it admits that the industry has no independent responsibility or ideals,
and therefore needs to be watched, and that "it is not true that the moving
picture men have no responsibility in this matter, for they themselves have
helped to demoralize the public taste," Lancaster Law and Order Society,
Annual Report, 1920, p. 5.
There is no lack of precedent for the governmental regulation of industries
which claim to give the people what they desire. We have detailed require-
ments for the formation of corporations; the milk, meat and general food
supply is " previewed " ; many drugs are minutely regulated in their distribution-
12 MOTION PICTURES
No other generalization as to the standards of the industry
can be made. There is no set of standards which could be
applied to the entire field. It is, however, encouraging to note
that while certain elements seem to have no ideals to which they
adhere, the leaders in the industry are back of the movement
to have only unimpeachable pictures shown. Their motive
may be mainly economic. It may be that they see the hand-
writing on the wall. Whatever the cause for their desire for
clean pictures, that desire is a fact. "Women constitute 65 per
cent, of your audience. Why offend them?" says an advertisement
in a motion picture annual. "There are some things that
cannot be done safely even to fill empty seats in the summer-
time," remarks the editor of the Exhibitors' Herald in discussing
the showing of a "sordid mess" by the name of "Some Wild
Oats" in a number of mid- western theatres. l The bitter edito-
rial of which this was a part may have been inspired by a growing
consciousness of the fact that the industry's methods of filling
empty seats are under fire, but it is, nevertheless, significant,
that such an editorial should be given prominent place in a
prominent journal. An executive of the Realart Company,
after a ten weeks' tour of the United States in the interests of
the motion picture industry, was convinced that there exists a
universal sentiment among exhibitors against showing any but
clean pictures. He is very careful to add that this virtuous
tendency is not the result of a sudden desire on the part of the
exhibitors to protect humanity from itself, but that it is the
result of new social conditions which are eliminating the sala-
cious, suggestive picture. 2
It is also worthy of comment here that one large producing
firm has recently engaged a well-known experienced censor as a
permanent member of its staff to pass on its films before their
release. a The immediate purpose of the company may be to
save money by making their product "censor proof," as is being
1 Exhibitors' Herald, Vol. XIII, No. 11, September 10, 1921, p. 36.
* Motion Picture News, Vol. XXIV, No. 19, October 29, 1921, p. 2274.
Moving Picture World, Vol. XXIV, No. 16, October 8, 1921, p. 1852.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 13
attempted by many other companies, but coming at the present
time, the action must also be recognized as a yielding, be it
ever so slight, to an increasing public demand for clean pictures.
That the members of the motion picture industry are not
entirely insensible to the necessity of and demand for "clean
pictures" is evidenced by the fact that the ^
of the Motion Picture Industry, representing the producers of
a great majority of the motion pictures made in the United
States, on March 5, 1921, unanimously adopted resolutions
condemning the use of motion pictures as a means of "arousing
bawdy emotions or pandering to a salacious curiosity", or
otherwise endangering the public welfare. l Provision was made
that the resolutions should not be so interpreted as to hamper
the creators of art in motion pictures.
In view of the fire of criticism which is being directed at the
supposed lack of standards on the part of the motion picture
interests, it seems advisable to reproduce in detail ^P j^^als
which they profess to support. Tha resolutions condemn the
production of pictures:
" (a) Which emphasize and exaggerate the sex appeal or depict
scenes therein exploiting interest in sex in an improper or
suggestive form or manner.
"(&) Based upon white slavery or commercialized vice, or
scenes showing the procurement of women or any of the
activities attendant upon this traffic.
" (c) Thematically making prominent an illicit love affair which
tends to make virtue odious and vice attractive.
" (d) With scenes which exhibit nakedness or persons scantily
dressed, particularly suggestive bedroom and bathroom
scenes and scenes of inciting dancing.
" (e) With scenes which unnecessarily prolong expressions or
demonstrations of passionate love.
" (/) Predominantly concerned with the underworld or vice and /
crime, and like scenes, unless the scenes are part of an /
essential conflict between good and evil.
1 Chase, William Sheafe, Catechism on Motion Pictures, New York City,
1921, p. 21.
14 MOTION PICTURES
"(g) Of stories which make gambling and drunkenness attrac-
rf tive, or of scenes which show the use of narcotics and other
unnatural practices dangerous to social morality.
"(ti) Of stories and scenes which may instruct the morally
feeble in methods of committing crimes, or by cumulative
processes, emphasize crime and the commission of crime.
."(*) Of stories or scenes which ridicule or deprecate public
/ officials, officers of the law, the United States Army, the
United States Navy, or other governmental authority, or
which tend to weaken the authority of the law.
"(/) Of stories or scenes or incidents which offend religious
belief or any person, creed or sect, or ridicule ministers,
J priests, rabbis or recognized leaders of any religious sect,
and also which are disrespectful to objects or symbols used
in connection with any religion.
" (k) Of stories or with scenes which unduly emphasize bloodshed
and violence without justification in the structure of the
story.
"(/) Of stories or with scenes which are vulgar and portray
improper gestures, posturing and attitudes.
" (m) With salacious titles and sub-titles in connection with
their presentation or exhibition, and the use of salacious
advertising matter, photographs and lithographs in con-
nection therewith." 1
These standards correspond to a great extent with the pro-
/ visions concerning objectionable matter issued by the Pennsyl-
< vania and other boards of censorship, except that they are not
so detailed and make more allowance for "artistic expression".
The frequent eliminations by the various boards of review from
films submitted to them by the same producers who signed these
resolutions implies either a wide divergence of opinion as to what
is injurious to the public welfare, or that the resolutions, were
not binding upon all of those who subscribed to them. Since,
as we shall see later, the expressed standards of practically all
1 Chase, William Sheafe, p. 21.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 15
boards of review are based on the same ideals of conduct as
those expressed in the above resolutions, the first possibility is
minimized, though not eliminated. There is agreement upon I
what is socially desirable, but in actual practice, it is not always |
the socially desirable course of action which is pursued.
In actual practice, in fact, each company has its own standards,
whether it is a producing or exhibiting organization. For
example, many theatres, especially the larger ones, run over the
films before the public showing and eliminate what is believed
to be objectionable to the audience for which it is intended.
This practice is so common even in states and communities which
have little or no legal censorship that it excites no trade comment.
It is taken for granted that each manager will use his own judg-
ment. Such cuts are frequently made to shorten the program
or to improve the "action" of the pictures from a technical
point of view, but they are also made in order that the patrons
may not be offended. Some few films are circulated throughout
the country in the form in which they have been approved by
one of the state boards of censorship, though no legal power to
compel such procedure exists. There is no question that the
entire industry knows what is accepted as socially desirable.
Their actions and resolutions demonstrate that fact. How far
their pictures are in accord with what they know to be the
socially desirable standards is another matter.
Knowing that an appreciable percentage of the producers and
exhibitors are willing, are anxious to give the people what they
want; knowing that the energies of the industry are being
bent to the task of finding out what its patrons want to see, it
is of little importance further to study the standards of its
leaders. We know that they are governed by self-interest, and '
that self-interest tells them to produce the thing that will sell
best. Heretofore, the picture which has sold the best, or which
nasbeen believed to be the best seller, has been the sex picture
or the melodramatic thriller portraying crime, violence and
sudden death. In view of the rapid rise of the industry, the
conclusions of its leaders that such pictures were wanted seems
not entirely unjustified. But is the bold presentation of the
16 MOTION PICTURES
sex motive still desired by those who have the right to determine
what shall be shown? That can be decided not by a study of
what the producers think, but by a study of the carefully thought
out sets of standards put forth by the representative groups of
people who have interested themselves in the problem.
The best organized of these sets of crystallized public opinion
are those of the various boards of censorship, all of which attempt
to keep in touch with public opinion. In considering them,
it must be borne in mind that they are not absolute, that no
board rigidly adheres to them. The Pennsylvania Board of
Censorship, which has been considered as representative of the
best in American legal control of motion pictures, has formulated
a very definite series of rules concerning the things that may
not be shown, yet time and again mention is made, even in the
rules themselves, that it is the spirit and not the letter thereof
that will be carried out in the actual process of censoring. l One
rule states that scenes in which the body is unduly exposed will
be disapproved, yet in recent showings of the "Queen of Sheba",
for example, the human form was repeatedly shown with an
unusual amount of exposure, which was apparently not con-
sidered "undue." The reason for the apparent departure from
the regulations was that the Board apparently recognized that
the scenes were in keeping with the historical setting and that
the underlying motives were remarkably free from the suggestive.
Morals vary with the passing of time; they are not the same in
all parts of the world, even in the various parts of the United
States. The narrowest and most poorly equipped censorship
official soon after entering office realizes that his judgments must
1 The standards of the Pennsylvania Board of Censors were derived from
those of the English censors, and in turn, have been adopted by practically
all American previewing officials, with only minor changes. The present
English standards which are given in Appendix C, are possibly too detailed
to allow for a wise use of individual judgment which seems essential in cen-
soring, but they are nevertheless in fundamental agreement with the accepted
American standards.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 17
vary as the time, setting, and themes of the pictures brought
before him vary.
All scenes or motives which are prohibited by the Pennsyl-
vania Board of Censors may be classed under the five headings
of violations of social standards in regard to sex, person, property,
religion and the state. l Eight out of nineteen rules deal primarily
with violations of sexual standards, six deal with other offenses
against the person, and two with offenses against property. None
deal exclusively with violations of religious standards, or with
offenses against the State. Profanity in subtitles and ridicule
of religious sects are forbidden in minor provisions of rules which
have to do mainly with other subjects. The State seems to be
almost entirely unprotected, for the only provisions made in
its behalf are the one which prohibits stories or scenes which
hold up to ridicule or reproach races and other social groups,
and might therefore incite riots, and that which forbids pictures
dealing with counterfeiting. The emphasis is almost entirely
on questions of sex and physical safety, with private property
running a poor third in the race for protection.
The basis for these working standards of the Pennsylvania
Board of Censors is Section 6 of the censorship act passed
May 15, 1915. This section provides that the Board shall
approve all films which are "moral and proper; and shall dis-
approve such as are sacrilegious, obscene, indecent, or immoral, ;
or such as tend in the judgtnent of the Board to debase or corrupt *
morals." *
Attention is called to the fact that the legal statement in the
above quotation of what should not be permitted to be shown
on the screen is nothing new in the history of American legisla-
tion, or that of any other civilized nation. Certain acts which
have been deemed detrimental to the welfare of the group have
always been tabu. This country has always considered that
1 For purposes of comparison with the standards of other organizations,
the Pennsylvania rules are quoted in full in Appendix D.
1 Pennsylvania State Board of Censors, Rules and Standards, Harrisburg,
1918, p. 4.
18 MOTION PICT. URES
which is "sacrilegious, obscene, indecent and immoral" or
anything which might lead to such conduct, to be harmful to
group welfare. In every state, city or county of the United
States, irrespective of whether a censorship act is in force, the
police officials have full power to regulate conduct not in accor-
dance with the above provision. The only thing new about the
act is that it provides a separate body of officials to deal with a
specific problem of conduct, instead of leaving the entire field
to the already existing authorities.
The important point for the present discussion, however, is
not that a new official body has been created, but that there is
general agreement, crystallized in the laws of our nation, on
what should and what should not be permitted to be presented
to the public. There is no place in the Union where any picture
which is grossly immoral or sacrilegious cannot be immediately
suppressed under existing legislation. But existing legislation
does not define in most cases just what is immoral or sacrilegious,
and that is one of the things that the law cannot do for the
reason that there is no rigid and even temporarily unchanging
classification of such acts possible. Admitting this point,
realizing that morals are the expression of group opinion, we must
consequently form judgment concerning the existing type of
motion picture on the basis of what are the generally accepted
social standards of today.
The opinion of the Pennsylvania Board of Censorship in its
bare outlines is that anything which tends to break down the
family in its present form is included in its legal instructions as
to what not to permit. The portraying of suggestive nudeness,
prostitution, assaults upon women with immoral intent, and
other sex irregularities is believed to have such a tendency.
Similarly, scenes which show gruesome situations, murders,
stabbing, chloroforming, the inflicting of other personal injuries
are disapproved, especially if prolonged beyond the limits neces-
sary to the continuity of the play. The illegal destruction of
property by burning or wrecking, and wrongful appropriation of
property must also be shown only when necessary to the action
of the picture. The Board seriously doubts whether it is ever
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 19
necessary to show the "modus operandi of "criminals"
in such detail as to be easily imitated. Sacrilege and the
ridicule of funerals, morgues, houses of ill fame, hospitals, and
the like, for purposes of slapstick comedy is also interpreted as
tending to debase public morals. These minute yet flexible
regulations are an attempt by an official body to interpret the
will of the legislators who framed the bill and the people who
have chosen them for office. Are they correct interpretations?
A series of studies which will be discussed in a later chapter
was made, beginning in 1916 under the direction of the Civics
Department of the General Federation of Women's Clubs.
The women who interested themselves in these surveys must be
considered as having social standards which are largely in accord
with those of the general public, since the membership in the
clubs is representative of the middle and upper strata of our
population. At that time there were approximately two million
members in the Federation, and the ideals of these two million
women are largely representative of those of their families and
closer friends. The classifications of pictures into good, bad
and not worth while were made with practically the same bases
for judgment as those used by the Pennsylvania Board of Censors,
the main variation being as will be noticed later, the fact that
the Women's Clubs did not express their ideas in as specific
terminology as did the Board of Censors. The fundamental
principles were remarkably similar.
The Women's Co-operative Alliance of Minneapolis, Minne-
sota, in an investigation of the Minneapolis motion picture
houses in September, 1920, made use of the Women's Clubs' plan
of procedure, but in adapting it to their own needs and in making
the points for investigation more specific, they practically
duplicated the standards in use by the Pennsylvania Board.
Again, the only difference between the two was the fact that
one was more detailed than the other.
We may take the results of almost any of the numer-
ous investigations, including those by the National Board of
Review which claims carefully to have sounded public opinion
20 MOTION PICTURES
in the formation of its standards, which have been made of
motion pictures, and invariably find that the acts and themes
considered undesirable are, with rare and minor exceptions,
fundamentally the same. l The various boards of censorship
eliminate and approve the same scenes and pictures, though
occasionally some producer points with glee to a glaring incon-
sistency between the judgments of two boards, which, after all,
is only to be expected when the various elements of the situation
are taken into consideration. Women's Clubs, censorship
officials, newspapers and other publications, ministerial associa-
tions, and the industry itself are united in principle. Any. trade
journal editor, any producer, any exhibitor will indignantly
deny that he has any desire to" advocate, produce or show any-
thing which will tend to corrupt the morals of the people, though
occasionally one will admit that it sometimes has to be done
in order to compete with others whose ideals are not so high
as his own and keep his own box office receipts on a paying basis,
in spite of his higher personal standards of belief.
Since a common basis of principle has been established through
a demonstration of the general acceptance of fundamentally
similar ideals, it is now possible to discuss investigations of the
content of motion pictures in an effort to determine its agreement
with or variation from the established base.
1 Much material issued by the National Board of Review, 70 Fifth Avenue,
New York City, has been considered in the study of its standards. Since
this has been in the form of pamphlets and scattered mimeographed sheets,
it seems inadvisable to give specific references. It is sufficient to say that its
standards are for practical purposes the same as those already quoted, namely,
those of the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry, and these
of the Pennsylvania State Board of Censors. The original material may be
obtained from the Board upon request.
I
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 21
III
CONFORMITY OF MOTION PICTURES TO THE ACCEPTED
SOCIAL STANDARDS
DURING the one year period from the first of November, 1917,
until the first of December, 1918, in the city of Chicago, in
which city practically the same pictures are exhibited as in any
other city in the United States, the acting censor deleted
55,604 feet of film from that submitted to him for approval, or a
total of 974 subjects. The brief official statement of the reasons
for the deletions is given in the following table, as is the relative
frequency of their occurrence : *
NUMBER OF
CAUSES OF
SUBJECTS
ELIMINATION
FT. DELETED
PER CENT.
467
Unlawful
31,040
47.9
220
Immoral
14,135
22.5
183
Indecent (Comedy)
6,539
18.77
42
Indecent (Drama)
1,978
4.2
36
Nude
1,093
3.0
17
Obscene
400
1.7
6
Race
254
0.6
3
Creed'
165
0.3
While the assigned causes of the eliminations are extremely
vague, it is possible to see in them the previously mentioned
sexual, property, personal, religious and state offenses. Com-
bining the immoral, indecent (both in comedies and in dramas),
nude and obscene, we find that over 50.0 per cent, of the offenses
were against sexual standards. Offenses against race and creed
are in a very small minority, as is to be expected from our pre-
vious analysis of standards. The term "unlawful" is the most
vague of all, but although it has been impossible to obtain any
1 Chicago Motion Picture Commission, Report, September 1920, p. 183.
22 MOTION PICTURES
exact statement of what is meant, it is not difficult to reach the
conclusion that it refers to scenes which would be likely to incite
to unlawful acts through the portrayal of crimes and brutality.
This heading includes a majority of the deleted subjects which
were not included under the general heading of sexual offenses.
At that, it is a very close second, lacking only 3 per cent, of
being equal to the latter type of offenses.
A committee .of four hundred women from the Chicago Political
Equality League presented the results of what is probably the
most extensive, representative survey of motion pictures ever
completed in the United States to the New York Biennial Con-
vention of the General Federation of Women's Clubs. One / *1 j
thousand, seven hundred and sixty-five plays were surveyed.
About 21 per cent, of these were classed as bad, nearly 30 per
cent., for example, showing criminal scenes. Only 20 per cent,
were classed as being likely to have a positively beneficial effect
on the audiences. The majority, or 80 per cent., were either
of a harmful nature or "not worth while." 1
Surveys similar to that made by the Chicago Political Equality
League were made by Members of the Women's Federation in
Michigan, Arkansas, South Dakota, West Virginia, New York
NO. PER CENT.
1 Number of plays under observation 1765 100
Classed as good 348 20
Classed as bad 367 21
"Not worth while" 1040 59
Plays showing domestic infelicity 282 16
' clandestine appointments 229 13
" drinking or bar room scenes 485 27
" scenes suggesting criminal acts 588 33
" gambling scenes 210 12
" " lewd actions 193 11
" objectionable close-up filming 158 9
" risque or immoral scenes 229 13
Tending to create contempt for law, etc 123 7
" " contribute to delinquency 353 20
General Federation Magazine, January, 1919, p. 13.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 23
and Rhode Island. l These were made on plans based on the
methods used by the Illinois organization. Mrs. Bessie Leach
Priddy, Chairman of the Federation's Department of Civics
in 1919 is authority for the statement that these latter investiga-
tions "practically corroborated" the previous findings. 2 It is
therefore unnecessary to quote from material which, gathered
under very nearly the same conditions as the Illinois material,
leads to identical conclusions.
A survey ui sixty- two motion picture houses in Minneapolis in
September, 1920, by the Women's Co -Operative Alliance while
not so extensive as that by the Women's Federation, is probably
more accurate and reliable in that it was completed by two
workers who were acquainted with the methods of previous
surveys, such as that by the Chicago Political Equality League,
and who had used all possible precautions to standardize their
judgments. 3 The features which they decided upon as ob-
jectionable were elaborations of the features which the Federa-
tion considered objectionable. A comparative study of their
judgments later showed that they had been reasonably successful
in reducing the personal element to a minimum. Since, however,
their investigation was of an intensive rather than an extensive
nature, its results cannot be considered representative or of any
great value in a general discussion of motion pictures unless
discussed from the point of view of their agreement with other
material of a more general nature. In other words, so limited a
sample may fairly be used only in conjunction with other sam-
ples.
Although made about five years after the Illinois survey, a
noteworthy correlation is readily observable between the results
obtained by the two investigations. The Illinois study founcK
that 27 per cent, of the plays showed drinking or bar roomy
1 General Federation of Women's Clubs, Report of Fourteenth Biennial \
Covention, p. 411, p. 450.
1 General Federation Magazine, January, 1919, p. 13.
8 Women's Co-Operative Alliance, Inc. The Better Movie Movement,
Publication No. 38, Minneapolis, Minn., Feb. 1921.
24 MOTION PICTURES
scenes; the Minneapolis study found that in 19 per cent, of the
plays which came under their observation there were objectionable
drinking or bar room scenes. The former found that 9 per cent,
contained objectionable close-up scenes; the latter found 12 per
cent, contained objectionable close-up filming. The former
found that 11 per cent, showed lewd actions; the latter found 12
per cent, to be the corresponding figure for this item. J Other
items are possibly not entirely comparable due to the different
working bases of the investigators. It is sufficiently evident,
however, even to the casual observer that there is no signifi-
cant inconsistency between the two reports.
The above quoted examples of investigations of motion
pictures confirm not only each other in their conclusions, but
also bear out numerous less pretentious investigations and a
large amount of the individual criticism which has been directed
/ at the industry for the admitted purpose of many of its mem-
bers of giving the people the things they believe they want,
irrespective of the social effects of such a course of action.
PERCENT. PERCENT.
1 DID THE PLAYS SHOW YES NO
Habit-forming drug using made attractive 4 96
Objectionable bed-room scenes 4 96
Criminal methods in a way to give instructive ideas. . . 6 94
Prolonged objectionable love scenes 6 94
Gambling made alluring or attractive 8 92
Race friction 9 91
Any objectionable close-up filming 12 88
Any risque or lewd actions 12 88
Religion or law ridiculed or held in contempt 12 88
Any irreverence depicted 14 86
Suggestive or objectionable exposure of person 16 84
Gruesome subjects or death scenes, objectionable 16 84
Objectionable drinking or bar room scenes 19 - 84
Infidelity or disregard of marriage vows 20 80
Underworld scenes or objectionable dancing 24 76
Any obscenity, immorality or vulgarity 36 65
Any sex problem handled in an objectionable manner. . . 8 92
Women's Co-Operative Alliance, Inc., Better Movie Movement, Publication
No. 38, Minneapolis, Minn., February, 1921.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 25
The Byiend Doctor Clifford G. Twombley, of Lancaster,
Pa., is without doubt one of the leading churchmen who have
done anything of value on the subject of motion pictures. It is
his estimate that between 80 per cent, and 90 per cent, of all the
children in this country under twelve years of age are reached by
motion pictures. It was under his direction that the Ministerial
Association of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, investigated conditions
in that city from January 8 to February 9, 1917. A group of
twenty-two ministers of various denominations viewed 134
different films which were shown in Lancaster during this period.
Many of these pictures were seen by from two to six different
investigators, and in cases where judgments varied, the picture
was always given the benefit of the doubt. Of the 134 films
examined, 65 were found to be "good," 31 to be "bad," and 38
to be "indifferent." 1 It will be noticed that the Ministerial >
Association acted favorably on a larger percentage than did
the women's associations previously mentioned. In so far as
violations of accepted social standards were found, there seems
to be a correlation, though not to any remarkable extent, with
the previous reports.
1 Of the 134 films examined:
65 were found to be good.
31 were found to be bad.
38 were found to be indifferent.
30 pictures showed marital infidelity, bigamy, illicit love, immorality or
lust, in unnecessary or objectionable ways.
26 pictures had one or more murders or suicides.
19 pictures snowed intemperate drinking or drunkenness in them.
14 pictures showed robbery or theft, and more or less of their methods.
12 pictures showed gun play.
10 pictures showed gambling, both among the rich and the poor.
7 pictures showed the low resorts and habitues of the underworld.
7 pictures showed poisoning, chloroforming, the giving of knockout drops
or the taking of drugs.
5 pictures showed kidnapping or blackmailing.
Ministerial Association of Lancaster, Pa., Report of the Moving Picture
Shows Investigation, Lancaster, Pa., 1917.
26 MOTION PICTURES
As a result of Doctor Twombley's activities in fighting what
he termed the "motion picture evil", he was invited in 1920 to
Baltimore to study the films then being shown, to prove or dis-
prove the statements of a motion picture exhibitor who said
that if conditions could be shown to be as evil at a number of
Baltimore theatres, as certain reformers claimed, he would
forfeit a sum of money to any designated charity and devote his
efforts to remedying the evil. The results of the consequent
hurried investigation in Baltimore were published in the form of
brief synopses of the stories of thirteen films viewed by Doctor
Twombley. He admitted at the outset that 50 or 60 per cent,
of the shows were good or harmless, and visited only those with
suggestive titles. At that he did not have time to visit seven
pictures with titles such as "Sinners", "Shame", "Camille
of the Yukon", "Should a Husband Forgive", "The Woman
Gives", "In Search of a Sinner", and "Midnight Gambols."
That the titles are not entirely misleading is evidenced by the
fact that of the above pictures, the second was condemned
in toto by the Pennsylvania Board, while the others had 49, 15,
24, 15, 37 and 8 eliminations made respectively before they
could be shown in that state.
Since the method of judging a picture by a synopsis of the
story is somewhat different from the methods previously dis-
cussed, it may be of value to quote from Doctor Twombley in
regard to one or two of the plays he viewed. The story of one
reads as follows : "A man marries a prudish wife who repulses his
amorous advances and caresses. He then meets a former girl
acquaintance who tries to win him away by a purely physical
appeal After the girl has succeeded, the wife divorces
the man, who marries the girl. Then the first wife, who over-
hears a conversation of two women about her, determines to win
back the man again by the same purely physical, sensuous appeal,
and as she succeeds, the second wife loses him. An effeminate
violinist then makes love to the second wife in a sensual way
and wins her. Twelve eliminations were made in this film by
the Maryland board and twenty-two were made by the Penn-
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 27
sylvania board. It was distributed in its uncensored form
throughout 44 States of the Union." l
Or again: "A girl is kidnapped from the house of a rich
American in Egypt by an Egyptian 'nobleman' whom she has
refused to marry, and carried to a ' house of infamy. ' A young
dragoman, the butler in the house, discovers the kidnapping
and goes after the girl to the ' house of infamy, ' where he dances
in a sensuous scene with a prostitute in his arms, whom he finally
locks in a chest. So he is able to rescue the girl just as she, half
clad, is being forcibly caressed in a most sensual manner on a
bed in another room in the house of the Egyptian. Later on he
kills the Egyptian in revenge and the rich American marries the
girl.
" (NOTE The Maryland Board of Censors saved this picture
from being even far worse by four most necessary eliminations.
But the film goes practically uncensored in its worst form
throughout the country, except in Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Ohio and Kansas.)" Florida, New York and Virginia have
since been added to the list of States which have censorship.
These synopses were picked at random from the thirteen
reported in the Baltimore Sun. They are neither better nor
worse than the others. While they must not be considered as
typical of the majority of films released for public showing, it
must be remembered that they are representative of a relatively
large number of plays shown in the districts which have censor-
1 Apparently the motion picture interests do not consider such pictures
undesirable for to the best of Doctor Twombley's knowledge the forfeit was
never paid. The wording of the challenge which appeared in an advertisemens
in the Baltimore News was in part as follows:
"If you can point to a single motion-picture house in Baltimore which
shows the class of plays that you describe, I shall consider it my profound
duty to co-operate with you in a vigorous effort to prevent further exhibition
of such films If it be proved that any picture we show or have shown"
(in certain specified theatres) "might have a tendency to corrupt the Public
Morals, I will give $1,000 to any charitable institution you may designate."
Quoted by Howard A. Kelly, in "The Movie Evil," in the Supplement to The
Christian Citizen, Towson, Md., Vol. IV, No. 11, November, 1920.
28 MOTION PICTURES
ship, and representative of a larger number shown where no
legalized censorship exists.
An analogy which is frequently made is one comparing a movie
with a book or work of art, and arguing therefrom that that
which is permissible in print and art is also permissible on the
screen. This contention has been well answered by Dr. Ellis P.
Oberholtzer in the following quotation. "I have often been
told, when I have protested against a particular scene in a film,
that this is but a transcript of what is described in a newspaper or
a magazine. Conditions are very different; analogy is false.
A printed line may tell of the birth of a child; a photographic
depiction of the process of childbirth is another matter. An
assault upon a woman may be alluded to in print; it may, indeed,
be the climax of a story. But to photograph the last details
of such an attack and reproduce each movement in the graphic
method of the movie is to offend good taste, and often good
morals." 1 In accordance with this line of thought it is not valid
to contend that since stories much more frank in their basis of
sex motive are generally conceded as good literature and a
desirable form of human achievement, therefore motion pictures
of a similar nature are to be fostered rather than repressed.
The National Board of Review has always maintained that
its policy was to base its standards for reviewing on public
opinion, and that it constantly kept in touch with public opinion
through correspondence and other means of investigation. One
of the means of investigation recently employed was a question-
naire which was sent to eight hundred leading theatre owners
in different parts of the country. A mimeographed report
issued by the National Board in March, 1921, stated that 64
replies from owners or managers of 104 theatres had been re-
ceived and analyzed. 2 An attempt several months later to dis-
; cover whether any more replies had been received resulted in the
j information that only two or three additional replies had come
1 Oberholtzer, Dr. E. P., What are the Movies Making of Our Children?
World's Work, Vol. XLI, No. 3, January, 1921.
3 Mimeographed material in the hands of the author.
:
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 29
in since the issuance of the original report. In explanation of
this small percentage of replies it was stated in a letter from the
National Board that "it is our experience with exhibitors that
only a rather small proportion can be counted upon to reply to
questionnaires." If this were the only instance of reticence on
the part of the industry in furnishing information it would not
be remarkable, but there is no question that for some reason or
other a policy of silence has been generally adopted.
For example, a test questionnaire was sent out by the author
during the fall of 1921 to about 150 exhibitors in a mid-western
city. Every known house was sent a copy, and there seems to
be no doubt but that they reached their destination for only one
was returned by the Post Office on account of wrong address.
Five replies were received, and two of these did not contain the
requested information. The questionnaire, however, had been
carefully prepared so that no information was requested which
was not obtainable in similar form through any of the trade
journals, or which could in any way be considered a trade secret.
A short time later a state division of the Motion Picture Theatre
Owners of America wrote and requested that the author, to
quote verbatim, "kindly give more information as to just who,
what and why" the information was desired. It developed
later that managers of the important theatres have orders
not to fill out any questionnaires, but to send them to-
headquarters, as a matter of policy. Had fair answers beea
received to the first circulars, others with requests for more
important information would have been sent out. As it was,
such methods of investigation were shown to be fruitless, for
even though subsequent replies might have been received in
significant numbers it would have been dangerous to place much ./"'
trust in them clue to the suspicious turn of mind of the owners
and managers.
To return to the questionnaire sent out by the National Board,
if the limited number of replies is kept in mind in order to prevent
the over-estimation of its value, the results may be used to
corroborate the findings of other investigations. It must also
be kept in mind that since it was issued by the National Board
30 MOTION PICTURES
of Review on information volunteered by the motion picture
industry itself, the chances are in favor of any existing bias being
to the credit of the industry.
Only fifteen of the sixty-three owners and managers replied
that they had received any complaints from their patrons con-
cerning the moral tone of the pictures they exhibited. Fifty-five
objections were raised by thirty-seven individuals to whom
questionnaires were sent, exclusive of those objections which
related to sex-suggestive titles, to serials and to bathing-girl
comedies. Twenty-three of the fifty-five objections were
against the so-called sex pictures. The others were against
"pictures with excessive brutality and killing," the showing of
the underworld and crime, "nudity, vulgarity or salaciousness, "
the vampire and "over-done love scenes," and a total of seven
objections against propaganda, costume, highbrow society,
sacrilegiousness, dope, illegitimacy and "cheap" pictures. In
answer to a later question specific pictures against which objec-
tions existed in the patronage of the theatres in question were
mentioned. As was to be expected, no one picture was given
any preponderance of votes, since there were only sixty-five
mentioned at all. "Idols of Clay" was mentioned nine times,
"Midnight Madness" six times, "Sex", "Prisoners of Love"
and "Outside the Law" were mentioned four times. Two were
mentioned three times, seven two times and forty-eight one
time. It might be imagined that since such a wide range of
choice existed that the objections were vague or ill-founded.
This does not necessarily follow, for the total number of pictures
mentioned was only a small part of the total shown during the
six months covered by the investigation, and other investigations
have tended to show that pictures containing objectionable
features are not few.
The question of objectionable titles to pictures which are
possibly otherwise unobjectionable was also raised, though the
practice of attaching "box office titles" to the picturizations of
I innocent stories is too well known to require much comment.
Changing the title of Sir J. M. Barrie's "The Admirable Crich-
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 31
ton" to "Male and Female" is one of many examples of this
practice. There has been extreme frankness in the reasons
assigned by the industry for the changes as is evidenced by
several editorial discussions in trade journals concerning the
relative drawing power of the titles of well-known books in
comparison with the more startling titles tacked onto their
picturization by the producers. Forty-three exhibitors told the
National Board that they believed objectionable titles were being
given pictures, while thirteen replied that this was not true.
Forty -nine different pictures were named as examples by thirty
exhibitors. "Passion" received thirteen votes; "Forbidden
Fruit", eleven; "Passion Fruit", nine; "Sex", eight; "The
Forbidden Thing", seven; "The Devil's Pass Key", "The
Killer" and "The Passionate Pilgrim" three each. Ten were
mentioned two times and thirty-one were mentioned only once.
In answer to the question, "Is the sex element too large?"
thirty- two answered "yes" and twenty- three answered "no".
The answers, "Not too much for our patrons but perhaps too
much for the so-called reformers" and "No, neither motion
pictures, literature nor life can be separated from the ideas of
'sex'" show why much of the undesirable element remains in
the films of today, and will remain until removed by some power
superior to the individuals' desires for gain. Thirty pictures
were characterized as "sex pictures", including "Sex", mentioned
thirteen times, "Midsummer Madness", mentioned nine times,
"Passion", mentioned four times, and "Idols of Clay" and
"Prisoners of Love", mentioned three and two times respec-
tively. Six were mentioned two times and twenty, one time.
Twenty-two of the exhibitors claimed that their audiences were
larger when "sex pictures" were being shown, ten claimed that
they were below normal at such times, and nineteen thought it
made little or no difference. Thirty-five thought the National
Board of Review should be more stringent in regard to their
rulings on "sex pictures" and nineteen thought they were
sufficiently severe in their rulings. In the entire summarizing
report of the National Board of Review there is no evidence to
32 MOTION PICTURES
show that motion pictures are considered by the industry itself
to be in accord with the accepted social standards.
It is perhaps worthy of noting that the investigations which
have been considered are not representative of those against
which much well directed criticism has been aimed on account
of the apparently haphazard method of procedure and the use of
questionable standards of conduct as the bases on which the
judgments were built. An example of this type, which may be
entirely accurate but is nevertheless inconclusive and likely
to raise suspicions of bias, is one which was brought to the atten-
tion of the Committee on Education of the House of Representa-
tives at its hearings on House Bill 456 for the creation of a federal
motion picture commission, in 1916, by Doctor W. F. Crafts,
superintendent of the International Reform Bureau. According
to Doctor Crafts a state superintendent of schools of West
Virginia studied the "real character of current motion pictures, "
and found that 25 per cent, of the pictures were "good" and
/""not bad", and that 75 per cent, were "bad" and "very bad."
Cigarettes were shown in 35 per cent., drink in 50 per cent., and
gun play and murder in 50 per cent. "Deceit, intrigue, jealousy,
or treachery was a leading feature in at least 40 per cent, of the
programs presented." 1
In accordance with the results of the surveys which
we have reviewed, we may say without exaggeration that
approximately 20 per cent, of the films shown in this
country tend at least in part to have a harmulf effect if
moving picture audiences are in any way influenced by
that which is continually put before them. The fact that
possibly 50 per cent, of the motion picture films are likely to
have some beneficial effect does not prove that the harmful
plays should be disregarded. Violations of standards of conduct
which must in the nature of things result in similar conduct are
frequent under existing conditions; more frequent than is
1 House of Representatives, Hearings before the Committee on Education,
January 13, 1916, p. 9.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 33
necessary, as has been shown by the fact that boards of censorship
have eliminated many in the districts where legal provision is
made for such work. Consujejable^weight must be given to
the peculiar circumstance that the motion picture
one of the largest, manufacturing ihcriistries~m~the" counting,
"has not fought facts with facts? No ao^tfate^reiiu^ation oitne
rpsnlts ^ yLJtha^yariori3i, inW^tig^ : " has ev( -' r t> een offered.
t'ntil present conditions are altered it cannot be offered. The
industry cannot afford to become entangled in an argument in
which its members would be compelled to argue against their
personal beliefs and the facts in order to show that their choice
of plays, the result of a box office policy, is not in a large per-
centage of cases contrary to the accepted social standards.
6 /-
V
34 MOTION PICTURES
IV
EFFECT OF MOTION PICTURES ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
IT should be sufficient in order to indicate the harmful effects
of motion pictures to point out the number of people who attend
and the kind of picture they see, as has just been done, but in
order to emphasize the practical consequences of motion pictures
some evidence should be cited to demonstrate that the effective-
ness of the discussion does not depend solely on a belief in
determinism. All of the observations cited below are of children,
for the scientific, observational and experimental attitude towards
the problems of motion pictures has not been utilized in dealing
with adults, and we must therefore establish our point in so far
as they are concerned, using the deterministic doctrine as the
foundation. With regard to children, however, there is an
abundance of evidence on which to base estimates of the desira-
bility or undesirability of the films which are now being
exhibited. J
1 "Some of the most graphic accounts of the influence of pictures have
come from personal interviews with offenders, where in detail the vivid nature
of the mental process is exposed. Nor do we have to turn to offenders merely
to prove this point. Most of us have had like experiences. A prominent
educator, a man of active mind and purity of thought, tells me that one of
his main regrets is that he once saw a certain pornographic sketch. It was
indelibly impressed. Offenders we find, .... have sometimes been fairly
obsessed and impelled by the character of pictures seen. In this matter,
too, the pervasion of the sex element makes the chance of future representa-
tion all the stronger on account of natural impulses in that direction. The
combination of sex offenses with other criminality forms an unusually virulent
admixture for later mental depiction.
"When it comes to motion pictures we have added elements of force for
the production of either good or bad. Not only a single event, but chapters
from life histories are depicted. Not alone is one action or posture depicted,
but there is added all of the motor phenomena active through a period of time.
The act is not suggested ; every detail of it is made clear. The breaking open
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 35
The motion picture interests do not hesitate to lay claim to
being benefactors of humanity in that they are, through their
industrial and other educational films, broadening the horizons
of many who would otherwise be limited by lack of facilities
for obtaining information more directly; that they are stirring
many to action through their illustrations of ideal life and
achievements; that the numerous religious pictures, and others,
are sermons more powerful than any spoken word from the
of a safe, the holding up of a train, the effort at suicide are all presented in
such fashion that it is bound to recur as a memory picture of detailed events,
if there is any tendency or opportunity for its mental reproduction. Added
force comes from the concrete issues which are represented.
"We have had much evidence, sometimes in remarkablw ways, that moving
pictures may be stimulating to the sex instinct. We should expect pictures
of love-making and similar scenes to have this effect on young adults or older
adolescents, but we have very strikingly heard of it in children. The effect
is not only felt at the moment, but also there is the establishment of memory
pictures which come up at other quiet times, such as when the individual is in
bed. We have found that bad sex habits sometimes center around these
pictures. In some instances a very definite mental conflict ensues, with
production of delinquency along other lines.
There can be no fair consideration of the whole subject of moving pictures
unless we remember that, after all, the amount of delinquency produced by
them corresponds but slightly to the immense number of pictures which are
constantly shown. This partly tends to show the innocuousness of the greater
number of these pictures, but it also brings us back to our old question of
personal equation. Some individuals are susceptible to pictorial suggestions
and others are not. However, there is no excuse for showing pictures which
damage the morals of any one.
The main hope for the prevention of these undesirable effects will be foun"
in rigorous censorship of perverting pictures, and in radical prosecution o*
those who produce and deal in obscene and other demoralizing pictoria'
representations. Never have we heard one word indicating that bad effects
have arisen from representations that could in any way be interpreted as
productions of art. The type of thing we mean is altogether unsavory, and
obviously manufactured for its appeal to the passions, or to other unhealthy
interests." Healy, William, The Individual Delinquent, p. 307ff. See p. 241ff
for cases showing effect of mental imagery.
36 MOTION PICTURES
pulpit or platform. l The trade journals are at present boasting
that the industry can become a power in politics through the
judicious use of the screen. One of their strongest arguments
against legalized censorship is the influence which they say will
be wielded by censorship boards through the elimination of
scenes which might create an atmosphere unfavorable to the
party in control. In view of these claims it would seem to be a
difficult matter for the industry to defend itself by denying the
effect from the films which they are not so proud to own.
There is no lack of authenticated individual instances of
1 1 misconduct resulting from the suggestion or instruction of
|] motion pictures. "Michigan's experience tallies with that of
Illinois as a revelation of the need of better motion pictures for
/all theatres in the state. A survey of the situation in Detroit
was made by the city federation with astonishing results. Vice
and crime were increasing so rapidly that the judge of the
juvenile court was led to investigate the habits of juvenile
offenders appearing before him for the first time. In an open
letter to the Chairman of Civics of the Michigan Federation
the judge said that in a large percentage of cases the suggestion
had come to these young offenders through the motion picture." 2
This quotation is taken from a talk by Mrs. Albert E. Bulson,
part of which was included in the report of the Fourteenth
Biennial Convention of the General Federation of Women's
Clubs, and indicates that a direct relation does exist between
1 The National Board of Review of Motion Pictures considers as one of it 3
most important duties the issuing of selected lists of pictures having educa-
tional and moral value. Mr. Orrin G. Cox, Secretary of the National Com-
mittee for Better Films, argues that since a large percentage of the patrons
of motion picture theatres are under twenty-one years of age and therefore
readily subject of suggestion, much good could be done through constructive
measures for the improvement of programs by means of co-operation on the
part of the community with the local exhibitors. From a carbon copy of an
article by Mr. Cox which was sent to the author as an argument against
censorship by the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures.
2 Report of the Fourteenth Biennial Convention of the Genreal Federation of
Women's Clubs, 1918, p. 450.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 37
motion pictures and crime. Another quotation from the same
talk gives an example of a less frequent but none the less impor-
tant type of effect of the lower order of pictures. "To my
knowledge, " says Mrs. Bulson, "a young school boy after having
witnessed a film called 'Mothers, Protect Your Daughters',
secured a certain drug and asked another boy to go with him
and secure a couple of girls to experiment upon with the drug.
The mother of one of the boys obtained the bottle and gave it
to a physician who verified the statement made by the boy.
This film might be used as a warning to a girl, but I question the
advisability of exhibiting the methods used by white slavers to
our adolescent youth." The first quotation referred to the possi-
ble ejfects from the general suggestive influence of motion pic-
tures; the latter, to a more direct influence, that of instruction
in method.
A report issued in 1920 by the National Board of Review
presents the results obtained by a questionnaire which was sent
to probation officers in cities in the United States of over ten
thousand population which had juvenile courts. This report is
entitled "Motion Pictures Not Guilty," and claims to be a
verdict based on the questionnaire in relation to motion pictures
and juvenile delinquency. The verdict is that there is a "sur-
prising lack of evidence of direct responsibility of motion pictures
for juvenile delinquencies." Forty-two replies were received.
Of these forty -two, twenty-seven asserted that to their knowledge
"motion pictures were not directly responsible, to any appre-
ciable extent, if at all, for juvenile delinquency." Ten gave
no definite answer to the question of responsibility, due to a
lack of direct evidence to support an affirmative answer, and not
being willing to absolve the motion pictures entirely. Five said
that motion pictures were directly responsible for an appreciable
amount of juvenile delinquency. On the basis of these figures
the verdict of "not guilty" is reached. Is it justified?
If the verdict is interpreted in the strict meaning of the words
in which it is expressed there is sufficient evidence for its justifi-
cation. The report only says that motion pictures are "not
directly responsible" for juvenile delinquency in an appreciable
38
MOTION PICTURES
number of cases, which may be true. It gives the impression to
the careless reader, however, that motion pictures do not enter
into juvenile delinquency as an appreciable factor. The title
of the report, "Motion Pictures Not Guilty," seems designed to
give this impression. Quoting from the report itself, the
twenty-seven probation officers who are lined up as exonerating
the pictures only said that "motion pictures were not directly
responsible, to an appreciable extent", for delinquency. The
ten who were non-committal on account of lack of records for
convicting the movies, nevertheless had a feeling that they might
be "sometimes directly to blame." The individual reports have
not been available for examination, but the statements quoted
are the statements on which the verdict of "not guilty" was
based in the whitewashing report. They are an indication of
its weakness. 1
The same report quotes from the cinema inquiry in Great
Britain and from an investigation by Mr. E. M. Barrows of
cases of juvenile delinquency in New York City in which the
"movies" were held responsible. Both of these quotations,
while tending to show that the "movies" cannot be held as the
direct cause of delinquency except in a few scattered cases,
refer to the "large number of cases in which the 'movies' were
held responsible by policemen, judge sand reformers" and to the
generally held opinion of those who deal with children that
motion pictures are an influence in the moulding of the lives of
their charges. If the report does nothing else, it certainly
establishes this last point, which, after all, needs little sub-
stantiation.
A more scientific piece of work is the investigation conducted
by the Chicago Motion Picture Commission, the results of which
were published in detail in September, 1920, as a part of the
general report of that commission. Professor Ernest W.
Burgess of the University of Chicago supervised the investiga-
tion, which was also conducted by the questionnaire method.
Questionnaires were sent to the teachers and principals of the
1 National Board of Review, Motion Pictures Not Guilty, New York, 1920*
39
Chicago schools, and the tabulations of returns were made from
the reports of two hundred and twenty-three people, some of
whom were principals of schools having an average attendance of
aLout one thousand children. Only a few of the two hundred
twenty-three returns were made by teachers, since in many cases
the principals made out the questionnaires on a basis of reports
made to them by the teachers under them. At the committee
meeting at which Professor Burgess delivered his final report,
there were thirteen principals present, representing about thirteen
thousand children. This indicates that the two hundred twenty-
three questionnaires whose reports were tabulated represent
more children than would be expected had they been only the
returns from grade teachers. They contain only opinions, but
they are opinions which can be depended on as the best available,
coming from those who are sincerely interested in the children's
progress and who are in a position to observe and interpret the
facts.
It was found that in twelve schools of the one hundred twenty-
five represented by the questionnaires, the attendance of motion
pictures by the children was infrequent, and it is explained
that this infrequency was due possibly to inaccessibility of
motion picture houses rather than to lack of desire. One hundred
and twenty-five teachers reported that their children attended
the movies from two to four or "more times a week. Ninety
placed the ordinary attendance at one or two times a week. In
so far as the effect of motion pictures on school work was con-
cerned, thirfeen teachers reported "no effect," while twenty-
eight declared the effect to be predominantly "educational".
Five said the effect depended on the film, and eighteen did not
answer the question. Thirty-seven believed that attendance
at motion pictures accelerated mental development or improved
the general information of the pupils. The rest of the two
hundred twenty-three teachers and principals believed the effect
of motion pictures on school children to be harmful through
retardation of mental powers, general interference with school
work, rendering the children nervous and excitable, lowering
vitality, and through tendency to have other undesirable effects.
X**>
40 MOTION PICTURES
The information concerning the general moral effect of the
movies is significant when considered in the light of the atten-
dance figures just mentioned. Thirty-three teachers and princi-
pals believed that they had no moral effect, thirty-three believed
that it depended on the film, which is of course true, and two
stated that the general moral effect was good. In opposition to
these, fifty-one were of the opinion that the effect was "generally
bad," sixteen that lawlessness and disrespect were promoted,
sixteen that a craving for excitement was induced, nine that
"boy bandit" and robber games were created, and nine that the
"brazen, boy-struck girl" was a frequent result. All of the
two hundred and twenty-three not included above also believed
the general moral effect to be undesirable.
Direct questions were asked concerning the effect of motion
pictures on sex life and respect for authority. The consenus of
opinion was that the children became precocious about sex
matters, that there was a general demoralizing effect on modesty
and purity, that a disregard of marriage ties was fostered, and
that the authority of teachers and parents was materially
lessened. On hundred and eighty-three favored a board of
censors as at least a partial remedy for the situation, forty-two
were non-committal, and only eight favored some other plan of
regulation. Apparently none were in favor of allowing public
opinion to be the only control of the movies.
The author has personally interviewed a number of Philadel-
phia social workers in an attempt to make certain that there is
an appreciable effect of motion pictures on the people. A well-
defined opinion existed that there were wide-spread effects, good
as well as harmful, but that since the cases handled by the social
agencies visited in the main the cheaper houses which show the
more questionable films, the effect on the group observed by them
was possibly more harmful than otherwise. Speaking for the
country as a whole, this is probably not true, and there is little
reason to doubt that the total good effect is greater than the
total evil effect, for we have seen that at least three-fourths of
the films do not show flagrant violations of social standards.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 41
It is difficult to estimate the benefits which we reap from our''
contacts with the movies; it is much easier to point out evils, and
it is much easier to call attention to the evils than to arouse
public interest in the advantages, which do not hold the attention \
without effort. A distorted perspective results, but however
much the perspective is distorted, there is some actuality in the
view presented to us. Motion pictures do influence those who
see them, possibly not always directly, but by gradually forming
or altering ideals and their consequent conduct.
42 MOTION PICTURES
V
THE NATIONAL BOARD OF REVIEW OF MOTION PICTURES
, IN 1907 and 1908 two investigations were made of the moving
picture situation in New York City, one by a joint committee of
the People's Institute and the Women's Municipal League, the
other by the city police commissioner. According to subsequent
reports of the National Board of Review, "in both cases the
findings demonstrated that, in spite of some defects in subjects
and treatment, the large majority of films were wholesome."
The exhibitors appealed to the People's Institute for aid in
cleaning up motion pictures in answer to insistent public de-
mands for improvement, and the plans resulting from their
/consultations have materialized into the present National Board
of Review of Motion Pictures.
The basis of the National Board are the principles that the
screen has a right to freedom, that there can be no absolute
agreement of opinion as to what is "precisely moral and what is
precisely immoral, " or as to "where questions of taste and morals
overlap," that public opinion, "which is the compound of all
tastes and all ideas of morals is the only competent judge of the
screen, " that there can be no proper functioning of public opinion
unless freedom of the screen exists in order that the public may
judge what shall be presented to it, and that as result of these
. principles, the only just censorship is that which is voluntary
1 on the part of the censor and the censored, and is consequently
in accord with the dictates of public opinion. In illustrating
these ideals, the Board cites the example that every newspaper
is censored before publication by the blue pencil of the editor
who will not publish that which runs counter to the public taste.
The idea is that the National Board is the blue pencil for the
motion picture industry and is more susceptible to fluctuations
in the public tastes, and more easily reversed when in error.
| The mechanical means for the carrying out of these principles
j are a number of committees of disinterested volunteers, serving
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 43
without pay, and a limited staff of paid workers for the routine
duties which require more or less constant attention. The main
committees of volunteers are the Executive Committees, the
General Committee and the Review Committee. The range
of their duties is indicated by their titles with sufficient accuracy
to obviate the necessity of explanation. The staff consists of
six secretaries, known as the Executive, Advisory, Review,
Corresponding, Membership and Assistant Review Secretaries,
whose duties are also roughly indicated by their titles.
The original purpose of the Board was to censor all pictures
before they were shown in New York City. Since June, 1909,
however, the scope of its activities has been broadened to include
the entire United States, and representatives, purely voluntarily,
keep the organization in touch with the various sections of the
nation. Its name was originally "The National Board of
Censorship of Motion Pictures," but due to a certain amount
of odium which has attached itself to the word "censorship"
in the minds of many people, and to the fact that a voluntary
organization which has little legal sanction or authority to compel
obedience to its decisions can hardly be said to do any censoring,
the name was soon changed to "National Board of Review of
Motion Pictures."
The original purpose of the Board, however, is no longer its
only purpose. Censoring, or better, reviewing, is still its most
important work, but a second type of service is now being
performed. Censoring is a purely critical function in that its
purpose is to disapprove of certain more or less definitely defined
types of pictures. The second service performed by the Na-
tional Board is constructive, and "involves cooperation with
all of the forces seeking the improvement of the photoplay both
dramatically and socially." Its general nature is illustrated by
such samples of its work as issuing selected lists of motion pictures
for various purposes, such as its lists of Best Motion Pictures for
Church and Semi-Religious Entertainments, Pictures Boys Want
and Grown- Ups Endorse, Industrial Motion Pictures, A Partial
List of Film Subjects on Health, Disease, Nursing and Allied
Topics, Motion Pictures Aids to Sermons, Dramatic Photoplays
44 MOTION PICTURES
on Standard Literature, American Poetry and American and
French History, Forty Best Photoplays of 1920, Industrial Motion
Pictures, Monthly List of Selected Pictures, and others. This
selection is done under the direction of the National Committee
for Better Films, which is a part of the National Board of Review.
Its aim is to secure better films through co-operation with the
forces which influence the trend in the production of films and
achieve results through selection rather than through censorship. l
' In the last analysis the National Board of Review seems to put
little faith in censorship as a means of improving pictures, and
it is difficult to understand how any other attitude could be taken,
since it itself is an organization which, though created primarily
for censorship purposes, is of necessity driven to other methods
of action by its lack of power to compel obedience, legally or
by public opinion.
The National Committee for Better Films, however, does not
feel that its constructive program should end with the selection
of desirable films and the publishing of lists of those suitable
for various purposes, but has attempted to evolve a plan whereby
the selections will result in the more frequent showing of the
better class of picture. In answer to numerous requests a brief
outline has been prepared illustrating the manner in which
communities may take full advantage of the opportunities offered
for the improvement of film standards in their locality. Co-
1 "Fine pictures inspiring in theme, realistic in acting, satisfactory as to
entertainment value and moral quality pay. The public is forever speaking
its mind effectually. The selection of motion pictures, therefore, is always
unconsciously going on. This selection, however, is accelerated by the
careful choices made by the National Board of Review, by the writers, by
the distributors and the exhibiting managers.
"This process is far more effective than any system of censorship. Our
laws forbid the publication of any libelous, obscene, indecent, immoral or
impure picture or reading matter. Strict law enforcement and selection are
the best censorship. They demonstrate the absolute uselessness of arbitrary
state and federal censorship." National Board of Review of Motion Pictures,
A Garden of American Motion Pictures, January, 1920, p. 3.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 45
operation is the first principle advocated in the program. All
interested people, including the exhibitors, should be brought
together to discuss selected pictures. The possibility of special
programs for family nights, composed entirely of pictures known
to be up to the highest standards through the endorsement of
the National Board of Review, should be considered, and if
difficulties arise, correspondence with the National Board is
invited. Publicity for these family night programs must also
be arranged on a co-operative basis. Some plan for bringing
people to these arranged entertainments must be evolved, since
special programs cost extra money, and the exhibitor cannot be
expected to undertake them without compensation. Above
all, a "well considered system of education of parents to develop
a public sentiment both for finer family pictures and for selected
pictures for young people" must be carried on. "The primary
responsibility for attendance at motion picture entertainments
rests upon the shoulders of the parents of the town." "There
must be supervision and there must also be a recognition of the
fact that most film dramas are made for the entertainment of
adults." This plan is said to have the whole-hearted co-opera-
tion of the motion picture theatre owners of America, and is
worthy of more co-operation than it actually has from all classes
of interested citizens. It is not, however, an adequate substitute
for legal censorship for it provides no means of control in com-
munities which do not happen to care for selected pictures.
The National Board of Review always has been a substitute
for legalized censorship, a means of satifying both those who are
working for better movies from the point of view of their moral
effect and those in the industry who do not desire legal super-
vision of too detailed a nature. It is a compromise between
1 National Board of Review of Motion Pictures, Selected Pictures in the
Theatres, May, 1921.
Bulletin of the Affiliated Committees for Better Films, Vol. V, No. 5, May,
1921.
Nunerous other publications of the National Board also stress this plan
of community co-operation functioning through selection rather than
through censorship.
46
MOTION PICTURES
freedom from legal supervision of motion pictures and federal,
state or local censorship by legally appointed boards. As a
8 compromise without legal sanction in all except a few localities
it permits most of the compromising to be done by one party,
and places no absolute restrictions on the industry, which is left
free to submit its films for decision to the National Board or not,
as it sees fit. By its own claims, it views not more than 99 per cent,
and in actuality probably considerably less of the annual produc-
tion of motion pictures in the United States, and it has no ade-
quate authority over those it does view. When the number of feet
of film produced runs into the millions per year, the one or more
. per cent, which is not viewed is not negligible. But granted
that it were negligible, has the 99 per cent, been in any way
improved, or rather, has it been handled as well or better than
it would have been by state or other boards of censorship?
It is possible to compare the actions of state boards of censor-
ship with the actions of the National Board of Review on the
same films. An example would not be out of place. Doctor
Twombley, who has been previously mentioned, compared 228
films which had been examined by both the Pennsylvania State
CBoard of Censors and the National Board of Review. In these
films the Pennsylvania Board made 1,464 eliminations in accor-
dance with their standards as mentioned in a previous chapter
and given in detail in the appendix. The National Board of
Review in these same 228 films made only 47 eliminations. Out
of 16 films condemned as a whole as being so thoroughly unde-
sirable that it was impossible to make eliminations so that they
could be passed, none were condemned by the National Board,
and only 2 eliminations, both of a minor nature, were made. l
1 Chase, Wm. Sheafe, Catechism on Motion Pictures, New York, 1921, p. 24.
The following quotation from a published address delivered by Doctor
Twombley at the forty-second annual meeting of the New England Watch
and Ward Society at Trinity Church, Boston, Mass., on April 11, 1920, is an
indication that such discrepancies between the work of the National Board
of Review and the Pennsylvania Board are the rule rather than the exception.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION
47
This difference of opinion between the two boards is all the more I
remarkable when it is considered that the official standards off
the two organizations, as stated in the official publications of]
each, do not vary to any considerable extent save in phraseology.
The expenses of the National Board of Review do not run
very high since the workers are for the most part unpaid. In
1920, $17,224.33 was spent in reviewing pictures. This figure
includes the expenses involved in maintaining offices and dis-
tributing information concerning the judgments of the board
to the cities and communities which co-operate with it. In the
same year $20,717.93 was spent on the constructive part of the
program, and was used in paying for traveling expenses, printing,
publications, and other work of a constructive nature. The re-
ceipts for the same period were $38,296.74, and were derived from a
flat rate per reel for viewing pictures, from membership fees, and
from general contributions. 1 Little of this income on which the
continued existence of the board depends seems to be independent
of the good will of the industry which is submitting to be censored.
Provision is made whereby no member of the reviewing committee
may be in any way connected with the motion picture industry,
and the claim is thus made that decisions cannot be influenced
by producers. This does not necessarily follow, for it would not
be an entirely unreasonable course of action on the part of viewers,
consciously or otherwise, to be as lenient as possible so as not to
ruin any effectiveness the board might have by incurring the ill
will of those who support it. Cases in which economic depen-,'
/ "In 178 films examined some time ago, the Pennsylvania Board of Censors v -.
' made 1,108 eliminations of objectionable scenes of immorality and lust and J
indecency of all kinds. In the same 178 films, the National Board of Review /
recommended 41 eliminations only!
new comparison made only this last week between the work of the
Pennsylvania Board and that of the National Board in New York, shows
329 eliminations in 50 films by the Pennsylvania Board, and only 6 by the
National Board in the same 50 films."
1 National Board of Review of Movion Pictures, Activities of, New York,
January 1, 1921, p. 10.
48 MOTION PICTURES
- dence has influenced actions in regard to the source of supplies
are not rare, and one cannot help but feel suspicious in this case
in view of the wide disparity of action shown by. the above
comparison of the work of an independent and a dependent body
of reviewers. 1
Aside from the question of economic dependence, even though
the expenses of the National Board were to be paid from some
other source then they are at present, is it within reason to
suppose that producers would continue to submit pictures if
the percentage of eliminations recommended were much greater
than it is at present, or, if they did submit their productions for
approval, that many more eliminations would be made if recom-
. mended? As a question of expediency, it would be of doubtful
wisdom for the board to recommend many changes in the
pictures presented to them for the reason that producers do not
take kindly to the wasting of their financial investments and
would disregard the edicts of the board in a ratio directly in-
creasing with the stringency of enforcement of the established
standards.
1 The advocates of the National Board of Review as the most advisable
means of regulating motion pictures have made considerable use of the ap-
proval given their plan by the New York State Conference of Mayors in 1920
as evidence in their favor. The personnel of the committee whose report
was adopted by the Conference is worthy of attention. Of the thirteen
members of the general committee, the names of three appear on the stationery
of the National Board, though two of these are listed as representing other
agencies. The secretary of the committee, though not a member of it, was a
member of the National Advisory Committee of the National Board although
this was not mentioned as one of his qualifications. Three other members
represent the motion picture producers, exhibitors and distributors and are so
listed. Another member who was chairman of a sub-committee on state
censorship which condemned it as a means of control, was a well-known
author who has been noted for his violent attacks on any form of censorship.
The other members of the committee seem to have been of a more or less
neutral type. In view of these facts the conclusions reached do not seem
surprising. See, New York State Conference of Mayors, Report of Special
Committee on Motion Pictures, Albany, N. Y., February 24, 1920.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 49
The National Board of Review seems to be in favor of pre-jj
venting previewing of motion pictures by legal boards of censors P
by substituting for such regulation the enforcement by state [
and city officials of its own decrees. It offers its services to cities
and states for co-operation in such legislation which in fact is
not so different from the type of regulation which it so strenuously
opposes except that in the case of legally constituted boards
judgments are made by responsible officials while in the case
of the co-operation plan the previewing is done by volunteers
who are in no way subject to legal supervision, nor can they be
held responsible to anyone for their acts. l Florida prevented
the passage of a state censorship act by prohibiting the showing
in the state of any pictures which had not been passed by the
National Board. 2 Boston and a number of other cities have
adopted similar plans. 3 In these cases one of the strongest
1 A model ordinance for city, town or village, favored by the National
Board of Review, providing for the enforcement of its decisions, is included
in the report of the special committee on the New York State Conference
of Mayors appointed to make an investigation into the regulation of motion
pictures. This report was submitted to, and adopted by the Conference at
the semi-annual meeting held in Albany, N. Y., February 24, 1920.
2 Bulletin of the Affiliated Committees for Better Films, Vol. V, No. 7, July,
1921, 4.
3 Mr. John M. Casey, Chief of the Licensing Bureau of the City of Boston,
who has charge of the regulation of motion pictures in that city, in a letter
under the date of March 9, 1922, has explained the system as follows:
"The State by legislation authorizes the Mayor to grant licenses for all
amusements in the city 'under whatever terms and conditions he may deem
reasonable, ' and one condition that applies to the exhibition of moving pictures
is, 'that all films intended for public exhibition must be approved by the
National Board of Review.'
"The principal reason for this condition lies in the fact that we feel that
the National Board of Review, by the decisions of its reviewers, more nearly
voices public sentiment than has been given by any other method."
See also, John M. Casey, The Boston, Mass., Method of Motion Picture
Regulation, an address read at the Conference of City Officials and National
Board of Review, New York City, October, 1919, issued in pamphlet form
by the National Board of Review in 1919.
50 MOTION PICTURES
objections to the National Board is removed since its decisions
are given legal force, but the other defects inherent in the Na-
tional Board and the fact that if there is to be any previewing
done there seems to be no reason why a voluntary board should
be able to do it more efficiently than one paid by and accountable
to the state, render the well meant proposal inadvisable.
One indication of the influence which seems to have been
exerted on the works of the National Board is its attitude on the
question of censorship. It is openly opposed to legalized cen-
sorship and actively fights any proposal to establish it in any
state or community. Mrs. Albert E. Bulson, past president of
the Michigan Federation of Women's Clubs, is on record as
having said that "telegrams and letters came pouring in to our
legislators, my officers and myself with offers of speakers who
would present the matter from the standpoint of the pro-
ducers, when a censorship bill was being argued in the Michigan
legislature. l It was "the effort put forth by the National Board
of Review of Motion Pictures to spread propaganda against any
kind of censorship" which helped accomplish her conversion in
favor of censorship. 2 Objections to State Censorship of Motion
Pictures, Repudiation of Motion Picture Censorship in New York
City, and The Case against Federal Censorship of Motion Pictures
are the titles of three of many pamphlets sent the author by the
National Board of Review. All of them were published by the
National Board. Several investigations of the moral effects of
motion pictures, elsewhere discussed in greater detail, have
been made by the Board, one of which certainly failed to convey
an accurate impression of the findings. * More direct evidence
) is not at hand, but the general impression of those who are
/ independently working for better movies that the National
Board is not entirely a free agent apparently has some foundation
in fact.
1 Mrs. Albert E. Bulson, in the Report of the Fourteenth Biennial Convention
of the General Federation of Women's Clubs, pp. 450 and 451. 1918.
1 Mrs. Albert E. Bulson, op. cit.
1 National Board of Review, Motion Pictures Not Guilty, New York, 1920.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 51
We may, then, without impugning the motives of the volunteer
workers of the National Board of Review, summarize by saying
that the value of such an unofficial organization is much to be
doubted, in view of the fact that its existence may too easily be
jeopardized by those whom it is supposed to regulate. It has
been held up as a substitute for state censorship. It can never
fulfill that role. Its decisions cannot be enforced. Public
opinion is the only power which it claims to have behind it
throughout the country, and public opinion is far from being
unanimous in giving its support to anything. Its decisions
therefore will not be binding unless the exhibitor wants it to be
binding, which is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, or in those
scattered districts where the people know and are willing to
abide by the rulings which are distributed to a number of com-
munities by the board, which again is a situation not above
criticism.
This does not mean that the National Board of Review has no
function it can perform in the process of bettering conditions in
the motion picture industry. It means that a negative policy
cannot be carried out against exhibitors who believe they can
make money by violations of the negative decisions unless some
higher authority stands behind those decisions with the power to
compel obedience. If the National Board of Review wishes to
aid the "better movies" campaign it must emphasize its con-
structive policies. Its program must be one of education, of
education of the public and the industry. The Public must be
told what are the better pictures, which ones are suitable for
religious, educational, children's amusement, community health
and other purposes. It is said that only one- third of the pro-
jection machines in this country are owned by theatres, the
other two-thirds being owned by individuals, schools, churches
and other similar organizations. The National Board of Review
has here a large field to till, in that it may develop its present
constructive program and assist in directing the programs of
these machines. It may also direct the attention of the public
to the better type of picture to be seen at motion picture houses.
It may continue in its endeavors to ascertain the type of better
52 MOTION PICTURES
picture which the public wants and will pay for. It may aid
in showing the light to the producers who still believe that the
grosser sex play is the most paying proposition. It may advise
legislators, furnish data on the probable effects of proposed
legislation, advise voters on sound bases of facts as to the probable
effect of their ballots on motion picture problems. There is no
end to the possibilities which lie before the National Board of
Review if it pursues a purely constructive program and abandons
its negative policies to the organization which is best fitted to
carry them out, the government. It may be said that the
recent activities of the National Board of Review show a decided
tendency to emphasize the work for which it is best adapted.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 53
VI
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
MOST of the Federal legislation which has been enacted con-
cerning motion pictures has been tax legislation. Probably the
heaviest of the taxes has been the 10 per cent, tax on admissions
which was levied in 1918, and which applies not only to motion
picture theatres but also to all admissions to places of amuse-
ment, such as legitimate theatres, baseball games, concerts,
cabarets and other similar places. The government collected
over $89,000,000 from this source during the fiscal year ending
June, 1921. l Possibly three-fourths of this amount was con-
tributed by motion picture theatres, according to the best
estimates available. It is regretable that the Treasury Depart-
ment has found it impossible to separate the amounts paid by
the various kinds of places of amusement which pay the 10 per
cent, tax since such figures would furnish a valuable index for the
estimation of the condition of the industry from period to period.
We are again faced with the problem resulting from the utter
lack of available statistics concerning the motion picture industry
as a whole, and until such figures are available no accurate or
final determination of the effects of taxation or other business
influences can be made.
The industry is of course also subject to other revenue meas-
ures by the Federal government. z Export and import duties
have been levied on raw and exposed film, cameras and other
mechanical appliances necessary to the trade. These are still
being fought and defended. There is nothing new in the discus-
sion, which is only a repetition of all of the old high and low
tariff debates. A 5 per cent, tax on the monthly totals of film
1 Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Annual Report, 1921, p. 90.
2 See, Cannon, Lucius H. Motion Pictures, Laws, Ordinances and Regula-
tions on Censorship, Minors and Other Related Subjects, St. Louis Public
Library, July, 1920, p. 124.
54 MOTION PICTURES
rentals has just been repealed by Congress due to the insistent
and practically unopposed efforts of leaders in the trade who
were able to devote much of their time to lobbying in Washington
during the past legislative session. This film rental tax, which
together with the 10 per cent, admissions tax on ten cent admis-
sions, has been ineffective since January 1, 1922, was one of the
most bitterly fought taxes levied on motion pictures. The
contention usually offered was that it was overburdensome and
too great a handicap to be successfully borne, though the industry
seems to have developed at an extraordinary rate even while it
was enforced. The payment of taxes always hurts, especially
when they are as direct as the 5 per cent, film rentals tax and the
10 per cent, admissions tax. The clamor against these
"confiscatory measures" should therefore not be taken too
seriously.
Another type of federal legislation is that designed to protect
the military from ridicule and defamation. This legislation
forbids the wearing of any American military uniform by a
motion picture actor in a play in which his conduct would be
such as to lower the respect for the service. This would hardly
be worth mentioning in a social study were it not for the fact
that its enforcement has been strict though no special means of
compelling conformity were provided by the act. The govern-
ment has been able to enforce this legislation because public
opinion has been unquestionably back of it and because no
particularly great profit can be made by its violation.
Motion picture plays may be copyrighted under the laws of the
federal government upon compliance with practically the same
requirements as are imposed on the authors of books or articles
and on photographers. The court decision which has had the
greatest effect on copyright rights has been that of the United
States Supreme Court in which it held that a contract transfer-
ring the production privileges for presentation on the legitimate
stage of a literary work did not necessarily transfer the motion
picture production privileges unless specifically so stated in the
contract. There is adequate protection granted to motion
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION
picture producers and little or no complaint is evident from any
source in regard to this phase of Federal legislation. 1
Immoral motion pictures are classed for purposes of Federal
regulation with immoral books, pictures and other indecent
matter, and the penalty for bringing them into the country or -**"
for transporting them from one State to another is set at $5,000
fine or five years' imprisonment, or both. The only statute
definition of what constitutes an immoral film is the phrase
"obscene, lewd, or lascivious, or any filthy motion
picture" which has been considered by the courts to be an
adequate definition for legal purposes, though claims are still /
being made that the vagueness of similar phrases in State legisla-
tion renders them unconstitutional. Pictures of prize fights, or
"pugilistic encounters, under whatever name," are also for-
bidden to be brought into the country or transported from one
State to another to be publicly exhibited, and a penalty of not
more than $1,000 fine or one year imprisonment, or both, is
provided. Otherwise no Federal provision has been made for
the protection of the public morals from possible undesirable
motion picture films.
Of the two statutes quoted in the above paragraph, the one
prohibiting the transportation of prize fight pictures is the most
effectively enforced. This is undoubtedly due to the strictness
of definition of the forbidden act. "Prize fight" is a definite
phrase, and admits of little quibbling over the meaning and
interpretation of the law, and cannot be misunderstood even in
the absence of a special interpretative body. In spite of the
clarity of the law, it has recently been evaded by- showing every-
thing connected with a world's championship fight except the
actual fighting. This evasion is strictly within the letter of
the law, and could not be prevented under any censorship act
as yet devised. Similar situations have arisen before State
censorship boards in the cases of murders, where, for example,
the pointing of the revolver, the raising of the knife, are per-
mitted, while the precise moment of the killing is deleted.
1 Wid's Year Book, New York, 1920, pp. 305, 331, 333.
56 MOTION PICTURES
This seems a mere quibble over technicalities, yet it is difficult
to see how further restrictions could be imposed without danger
of foolish prudishness, even if it were unquestionably desirable
to do so. It would seem that with this exception to the enforce-
ment of the meaning of the act that its enforcement should
hardly be called effective, yet it is effective, but not due solely
to the efficiency of the enforcement officers, though their work
has been of the highest type possible under the existing legisla-
tion . It is the better type of theatre which has aided in enforcing
the law by refusing to show pictures which are uncontrovertibly
forbidden. With motion pictures under fire as they are at the
present time, owners cannot afford to endanger their cause by
flagrantly violating Federal statutes with no chance of contend-
ing that they have actually complied with them, as has been
done in the case of the laws against immoral pictures. This
voluntary conformity may also be due to personal desire to
keep in accordance with the law, and in many cases this un-
doubtedly is the motive for refusing to show pictures illegally.
Whatever the reason, few exhibitors will show pictures which
J ^ y* they have been definitely forbidden to show, and it is for this
\u. LbJ&V* reason that the legislation against the exhibition prize fight is
/ being obeyed in most cases.
These motives, however, are effective not for all theatres
but for a majority only. There will always be a considerable
number of theatres on the fringe of the trade which will show
anything for profit, and it is these theatres which can never be
reached except by some highly efficient legalized body whose
primary duty is to do the reaching, and who will be held accounta-
ble if they fail. The Federal government provides no such body.
The five state boards of censorship annually make thousands
of eliminations from the motion picture films presented to them
for approval. In Pennsylvania alone from the first of December,
1917, until the last of November, 1918, out of 11,460 reels of
film of a thousand feet each, 450 were condemned. Including
minor eliminations, during the same period 6,142 cuts' were
made. One hundred and eight subjects were condemned and
157 subjects were reconstructed. From March, 1917, until
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 57
October, 1918, there were over 125 prosecutions by the Penn-
sylvania Board of Censors in which fines were inflicted for the
illegal showing of pictures. Statistics for Kansas, Maryland,
Ohio and New York show proportionate eliminations and
prosecutions. We have seen the standards on which these
eliminations are made. Unless the judgments of the state
boards are greatly at fault, the Federal legislation prohibiting
the transportations of lewd, obscene, lascivious and filthy
motion pictures is little more than an obsolete blue law.
There is little probability that in its present form it will ever
be anything but a dead letter law. The terms used in it are
subject to various interpretations, or, rather, specific scenes and
subjects may or may not be in violation of them, depending on
who is doing the deciding. It has been found necessary to have
an Interstate Commerce Commission to put transportation legisla
tion into effect. The Federal Trade Commission has turned out
to be a useful body. The courts alone were unable to handle
the duties which have been out of necessity given over to these
commissions. The courts and their subsidiary officials have
proved themselves incapable of handling the motion picture
situation as is evidenced by the large number of eliminations
and prosecutions which it is necessary for the few state anc
city boards now in operation to make, though their operations
in no way interfere with the operations of Federal legislation on
the subject.
Bills have been introduced into Congress proposing to estab-
lish a national division of film censorship under the Bureau of
Education, and to define more accurately the things which shall
be excluded from interstate commerce. They have all failed of
passage. It was best that they should. In 1920, for ex-
ample, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives
to prohibit the carrying of films showing or simulating the acts
of "ex-convicts, desperadoes, bandits, train robbers, bank
robbers, or outlaws." During the same year Senator Gore
introduced a similar bill in the Senate. It would have been of
doubtful wisdom to pass either bill, for there is little reason to
believe that their enforcement would have been more successful
58
MOTION PICTURES
than the laws already covering the subject unless some radically
new measures were taken.
Representative D. M. Hughes, of Georgia, introduced on
December 6, 1915, House of Representatives, Bill 456, providing
or the creation of a Federal motion picture commission which
was to be a division of the Bureau of Education. Hearings were
held by the House Committee on Education, of which Mr.
Hughes was Chairman. The opposition to it as shown by the
witnesses and documents against it came mainly from the motion
picture interests, though there were some objections raised by
those who had no apparent connection with the industry. The
significant thing about the evidence introduced is that it was
practically all nothing more than personal opinion, which may or
may not have been correct, but which should have been sup-
ported by more evidence than was introduced. It is doubtful
whether the fiughes bill was defeated on its merits, though
there is a likelihood that its passage in 1915 or 1916 would have
been unfortunate. l
Any Federal commission to censor motion pictures before
their licensing for exhibition would be unwise at the present
time. There cannot be said to be any general consensus of
opinion in favor of legalized previewing of pictures throughout
the nation, though this must not be taken to mean that there
is no sentiment against the type of picture which the censor
\jwould be called upon to eliminate. Only a handful of the many
I/states and cities in the country have censorship legislation in
I force, and the remainder are not yet ready to take such action,
If or to have it thrust upon them. By the form of our government,
I the general police power, under which such action would natur-
\ ally fall, belongs residually to the separate states, and is in turn
\ delegated in part by them to the local communities. Until
1 The Hughes Bill, H. R. 456, has reappeared in practically the same form
in H. R. 10, 577, "A Bill to create a new division of the Bureau of Education,
to be known as the Federal Motion Picture Commission, and definining its
powers and duties, " which was introduced in the House of Representatives on
February 22, 1922, by Mr. Appleby of New Jersey.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 59
there is a more general belief in the principle of legalized censor-ft
ship, proven to exist by laws actually in effect, it would be
poor governmental policy to take a portion of the police power
customarily exercised by the states and their agencies away
from the governmental subdivisions which now hold it on th
pretext of regulating interstate commerce. Aside from th
technical administrative difficulties which would be encountere
there would be so many areas of considerable importance in whic
public opinion would not permit the enforcement of national
censorship legislation that the resulting moral deterioration i
those sections would largely offset the possible beneficial effec
in others.
It may then be said that the existing Federal legisla-
tion governing the motion picture industry is sufficiently well
framed and inclusive to serve the required purposes, though it
is not always achieving the results for which it was intended due
to lack of local co-operation and of specifically assigned enforce-
ment officers. No unanimity of opinion on the motion picture
question has been shown to exist among the forty-eight states of
the Union and more stringent action of a national character is
therefore not to be urged until some future date when the assump-
tion of police power by the national government would meet
with general approval. No sound objections to national censor-
ship on grounds other than of policy have been raised.
60 MOTION PICTURES
VII
LOCAL LEGISLATION: Municipal Regulation
THAT the police authorities have the power to stop the showing
/ of any picture which they believe undesirable from the point of
1 view of the public welfare is well known. This power is fre-
quently exercised even in states which have state supervising
officials, such as Pennsylvania. A recent example of this was
/the ordering of the withdrawal of all motion pictures in which
Roscoe Arbuckle appeared as an actor from the programs of all
Philadelphia theatres by Mayor Moore on September 11, 1921,
on the ground that further exhibitions of pictures in which
Arbuckle appeared would tend to offend public morals in view of
the charges which were then pending against Arbuckle in
California. This action by Mayor Moore was similar to that
of the authorities in Los Angeles, Memphis, Chicago, New York,
Pittsburgh, Washington and other cities, and was taken in spite
of the fact that the charges had not been proven. Other uses
of the police power were made by a number of city officials in
the case of films such as "The Birth of a Nation," which might
have caused disturbances between races.
As a method of control of the motion pictures it has proven
inadequate because the proper surveillance of pictures requires
an adequate separate force and cannot properly be done as a side
line duty of officials elected for other purposes; because if separate
officials must be maintained for censorship it is better that they
should be state than local officials in order to eliminate as far
as possible the variations of standards with their consequent
expense to the producers and loss of efficiency in the process of
censoring; and because local officials have in the past been found
to be incompetent, or undesirous of performing censorship duties
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 61
on account of either improper personal training or motives.
The general tendency is to use this local power only when the
danger of disturbance of the peace is great or when the picture
is so grossly offensive to decency as to agitate a group of voters
into definite action and thus spur the elected officials into the
performance of their duties.
Local motion picture regulation has been confined to municipal
regulation, due to the fact that motion picture theatres are an
urban rather than a rural institution. * As was natural, the first
censorship in this country was city censorship enforced by the
ordinary police officials, and was nothing more than the adapta-
tion of existing machinery of government to new conditions in
the simplest possible way as the new conditions arose. If
pictures were found to be immoral in the judgment of the city
officials they were eliminated just as immoral legitimate plays
were eliminated, that is, by action of the mayor or his subordinate
officials. Out of this first method of meeting the problem of
the undesirable motion picture has grown what is possibly the
most common system of censorship in use in the United States
today, that of a fioard of city^ensors acting under the city police
department, frequently consisting of regularly appointed officers
assigned^ to" this special duty, responsible to the mayor for the
proper performance of their work. If sufficient attention is
given to the qualifications of the men and women selected for
this duty it may be the most efficient method of municipal regula-
tion due to its flexibility in operation and centralization of final
authority in the hands of an accountable elective public official.
Chicago, New York and many other cities have used this general
type of censorship with considerable success, and there is little
doubt but that if municipal censorship is shown to be desirable
this system should meet with much favor in spite of the cries of
J A good discussion of censorship for all theatres which has added value
because it was written by a man who has had years of personal experience
in handling the problems of the immoral play, is contained in the article, 1
The Theatre and the Law, by William McAdoo, Chief City Magistrate of 11
New York, published in the Saturday Evening Post, January 28, 1922.
62 MOTION PICTURES
"graft", "incompetence", and "personal favor" which are
always raised when its use is being considered. l
While numerous variations of this municipal censorship board
have been tried throughout the country, in the principles in-
volved and in the results achieved by them few differences of
practical importance are noticeable, and these few need little
consideration here for the same reason that local censorship needs
little consideration in this work, and that is an objection to this
type of regulation which has never been overcome, the objection
that local regulation of a national institution of the importance
of motion pictures is economically and socially unsound unless
some centralizing control is imposed. 2 It is obviously impossible
for any such control to be instituted nationally, and as yet no
practical suggestion has been made for state control of municipal
censorship. It is difficult to see just how any plan of state
control of local regulation could be put into effect for some time
1 Chicago, for example, has had this type of motion picture regulation.
Section 1625, as amended May 24, 1915, of the City Ordinances specifies
that: "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to lease or
transfer, or otherwise put into circulation, any motion picture, plates, films,
rolls or other like articles or apparatus from which a series of pictures for public
exhibition can be produced, for the purpose of exhibition within the city,
without first having secured a permit therefor from the general superintendent
of police of Chicago.
" If a picture or series of pictures for the showing or exhibition of which an
application for a permit is made, is immoral or obscene, or portrays any
riotous, disorderly or other unlawful scene, or has a tendency to disturb the
public peace, it shall be the duty of the general superintendent to refuse such
permit; otherwise it shall be his duty to grant such permit." Department of
Police, City of Chicago, City Ordinances Governing the Exhibition of Moving
Pictures. (A recent undated publication.)
2 See, Cannon, Lucius H., Motion Pictures, Laws, Ordinances and
Regulations on Censorship, Minors and Other Related Subjects, St. Louis Public
Library, July, 1920, for examples of local regulation of motion pictures.
One distinct type of local regulation, that of the enforcement of the decisions
of the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures by city officials, has been
considered in the chapter on the National Board of Review.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 63
to come since in the past our political structure has not lent
itself easily to the imposition of centralizing organizations on
local agencies of government. The impossibility of adequate
national or state guidance of the existing local governmental
agencies such as the city, county, or township, forces us to the
conclusion that such local regulation of motion pictures is not
the most advisable form of regulation.
This does not mean that city censors should be abolished, or
that they have performed no service in the past. The report of
the Chicago Motion Picture Commission is sufficient to show
that they are performing a most useful function. Not only are
they now rendering society a valuable service, but they were
also instrumental in demonstrating the desirability of legalized
censorship in other forms. While they are not the most satis-
factory type of regulation they are certainly better than none
at all.
In a way local control of motion pictures may be compared
with local option in regard to the liquor trade. Each is the
first stage in a gradual evolutionary process. This comparison,
with corresponding prophecies by reformers concerning the
future, is not uncommon, and contains some measure of truth,
but it must be remembered that in the case of alcoholic liquors
the fight was against an alleged absolute evil with no important
redeeming features. This is far from the case in the fight for
motion picture regulation, for motion pictures admittedly contain
extremely great possibilities for social betterment. In the one
case the solution demanded had to be prohibition; in the other
it cannot be more than reasonable regulation. Although this
analogy is not entirely accurate it serves its purpose here if it
illustrates the fact that however valuable local censorship is
today, it cannot be regarded as anything final in motion picture
legislation, but only as a stepping^ stone on the way to some
Setter plan.
64 MOTION PICTURES
VIII
LOCAL LEGISLATION: State Boards of Censorship
SINCE it appears on the basis of the investigations discussed
in the preceding chapter that at least a fifth of the motion
picture plays now being shown to the public tend to have some
demoralizing effect on those who see them, and since approxi-
mately twenty million people daily attend motion picture shows
in this country alone, the total effect on the ideals and consequent
activities is far from negligible. The four-fifths of the pictures
which either have a positive tendency to create conformity to the
accepted standards or which have practically no effect at all
need not receive lengthy consideration in a discussion of legalized
censorship. The word censorship itself implies the fact that the
duty of a censor is to eliminate the undesirable rather than to
direct his attention to the constructive side of the question.
His work is almost entirely negative, and it is for that reason that
many of the attacks against his office have been launched.
The justice of such attacks may be judged by the amount of
negative work which has had to be done. Frontier conditio
in industry as well as in colonization demand harsh measures.
It is as a state organization that censorship has achieved its
greatest importance in the United States, and it is consequently
against this particular type of regulation that the most severe
criticism has been levied. For this reason the general arguments
for and against legalized censorship will here be discussed as a
part of the state censorship battle, though many of the principles
involved apply equally to municipal and Federal control. These
recurrent principles will not be mentioned in support of each
case to which they apply, for their application is so apparent
that such repetition would be tedious and without value..
State censorship boards are supplementary to the ordinary
judicial and administrative systems and do not supplant them
as is commonly supposed. For example, the mayor of any Penn-
sylvania city has authority to forbid the showing of any picture
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 65
he believes exceptionally harmful to the public welfare not-
withstanding a possible license for exhibition from the state
board. The board of censors only prescribes a standard below
which no picture is permitted to be exhibited. Other state
agencies may compel conformity to higher standards if they
wish but they may not lower the standards enforced by the
state authorities, excepting the courts, which may reverse cen-
sorship decisions if they are unreasonable or unquestionably
beyond the authority granted by the state legislature.
Pennsylvania was the first state to adopt the principle of
motion picture censorship through a state board, and has been
followed in the adoption of this principle by Kansas, Ohio,
Maryland, New York and Virginia. The first Pennsylvania
Board of Censors was created by the Act of Assembly approved
by the Governor, John K. Tener, June 19, 1911. This act was in
effect until May 15, 1915, when it was revised by legislative v
action. Under the reorganization act of 1915 a board of three
people, two men and one woman, "well qualified by experience
and education to act as censors," and residents and citizens of
Pennsylvania, are appointed by the Governor for terms of three
years. 1 Pennsylvania was one of the pioneers in this field, and
the work of the Board has always been considered well worth
studying by other censors. The act itself has furnished the
groundwork for the majority of censorship acts which have
since been proposed by other states and by the Federal govern-
ment.
The second slate to introduce state censorship wa^C^iiio*, ^
which on April 16, 1913, passed the law creating the Board of
Censors which consisted of three persons, appointed by the
Industrial Commission, with the approval of the Governor,
for terms of three years. * It is worthy of mention that this
board, the second of its kind in the country, is reported to have
been originated and backed by a number of motion picture men
of the state.
1 Pennsylvania State Board of Censors, "Rules and Standards," Harris-
burg, Pa., 1918.
2 Cannon, Lucius H., op. cit. p. 132 ff.
66 MOTION PICTURES
James M. Cox, who was governor of Ohio in 1913, and who
strongly supported the censorship bill, gave his support to it
because he desired to protect the children and young people of
his state. This seems to have been the general attitude of the
time, and presents a parallel to several other lines of development
of social reforms. In the development of the human and scientific
treatment of criminals it was the children who first attracted
attention to existing evils in the penal system of Europe due to
the fact that they were naturally more readily objects of sym-
pathy than adult offenders, and the fact that it was more readily
observable that the environment into which they were thrust
could not help but shape their lives than it was in the case of
adults. The same is true in the case of the treatment of the
mentally defective and of the poor. Even today the cause of
children needing assistance is much more easily pled than that of
adults, though the adults might be in much greater distress.
We see here the results of the belief in the doctrine of free will as
opposed to that of determinism, which, while still widely believed
in so far as adults are concerned, has been doubted for many
centuries in its application to the immature.
Slowly but steadily censorship officials are breaking away
from the idea that they are working for the benefit of children
only, or for any other class of audience. The interested public
is no longer basing its arguments for censorship solely on the
plea that the children of the nation must be guarded. While the
form of the laws passed since that of Ohio has changed but little,
the emphasis in their administration and the reasons advanced
in their support are undergoing fundamental changes, although
little actual progress has as yet been made since the Ohio act of
1913.
Under both the original Ohio censorship act and the amend-
ment which became effective August 27, 1915, the Industrial
Commission of that state controlled the board of censors, through
its power of appointment and supervision, specifically granted
by the act. This authority extended down to such things as the
providing of offices and equipment necessary for the carrying
out of the act, and the fact that the secretary of the Industrial
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 67
Commission acted also as secretary of the board. On July 1, 1921,
however, Governor Davis' Reorganization Bill abolished the
Ohio Board of Censors and all its powers and duties were trans-
ferred to the Division of Film Censorship under the Department
of Education. This again emphasizes the idea of child saving
which played an all-important part in the establishment of the
theory of censorship in the minds of those who have been
interested in the work.
The first censorship bill in Kansaswas passed by the Legisla-
ture in 19 14. .and provided a^ system of examination, approval
and regulation of motion picture films. In 1917 the legislature
created a board of three people, "resident citizens of Kansas,
well qualified by education and experience to act as censors,"
for the purpose of regulating the showing of films. The full
term of service for members of this board was, as in the case of
Ohio, three years. J This board is the one functioning in Kansas
at the present time, though a slight modification of one of the
financial provisions of the act of 1917 was made in 1919 for the
purpose of making the board self-supporting.
Thp Maryjjyjfl hoard of censors was created in 191 6^ and also ^T5*
consists of three members serving for three years. They are
appointed by the governor "with the advice and consent of the
senate, and the provision is made that one of the three shall be a
member of the party which polled the second highest vote at the
last general election prior to their appointment. 2 This latter
provision is important in its implications that the office of
censor, which is a technical position and requires considerable
training and soundness of judgment, is one of the spoils of war.
New York, the fifth staj;e to have legalized censorship, has
but recently joined the first four. JOfflida should possibly be
included among the states which have censorship of motion
pictures, but since the chief duty of the Florida officials is to
enforce the decisions of the National Board of Review it has
seemed best not to discuss the system of that state here in view
1 Kansas State Board of Review, Annual Report of, Topeka, 1920, p. 10 ff.
2 Cannon, Lucius H., op. cit. p. 120 ff.
68 MOTION PICTURES
of the fact that the National Board has already been analyzed
and a further discussion would add little to the value of our work.
In spite of a hot fight put up by the motion picture interests, in
New York State a censorship law very similar to those in ex-
istence in other states was passed by the legislature and signed
by Governor Miller. l Virginia in March, 1922, also adopted
state censorship of motion pictures, using a type of board simi-
lar to those in the other states mentioned.
It would seem that since only six states out of the forty-eight
in the United States of America have legalized censorship, and
that since the legislation on the subject in these states has all
been passed within the last ten or fifteen years, that censorship
has not yet had a trial by which it would be fair to judge its
value. This is not the case, for censorship is neither so new nor
so narrowly restricted as it would seem to be at first glance, nor
has it been without valuable results in the states in which it
has been tried.
England has had an effective form of censorship of the theatre
for almost two centuries. This was extended to motion pictures
as the motion picture industry expanded, and it is indicative
of the fact that it has not failed in England that the results
of the investigation of the Cinema Commission of Inquiry
which was instituted by the National Council of Public
Morals in Great Britain showed a balance of evidence in favor
of the continuation of motion picture censorship. 2 The
Cinema Commission was very careful in its investigation to
1 Laws of New York, Chapter 715, "An act to regulate the exhibition of
motion pictures, etc.," became a law May 14, 1921.
2 England has had censorship of theatres of all kinds since 1727. There
have been four Parliamentary investigations of censorship, in 1853, 1866,
1892 and 1909, none of which seem to have disclosed any facts justifying its
abolition, for complete censorship of all theatres is still in effect. Hearings
before the Committee on Education, House of Representatives, January
15-19, p. 157.
For a discussion of the development of motion pictures and censorship in
England, see the Times, London, February 21, 1922, Supplement, pp. V to
XVI.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 69
gather all varieties of evidence on the different social aspects
of the industry, and its report today stands as one of the most
thorough of its kind. It is without doubt the best governmental
investigation of the effects of motion pictures ever completed,
and will probably remain such for a long time. It is regretable
that nothing has been undertaken in this country that approaches
it in scope or value, though the United States is the leading
nation in the field of motion picture production and exhibition.
Germany had motion picture censorship before the World
War, dropped it for a time, and was recently compelled to go
back to censorship by the gross violations of the standards of
decency by producers who were attempting to "give the public
what it wanted." Japan also has a national censorship system
which has not been unsuccessful. l Numerous other govern-
mental units have legalized previewing of motion pictures
The Lieut.-Governors-in-Council in Alberta, British Columbia,
Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec and
Saskatchewan have power to appoint either censors or boards
of censorship with power to permit or prohibit the exhibition of
any film in their respective provinces. Section 1626 of the
ordinances of the Chicago City Council, as amended May 24,
1915, prohibits the circulation of any motion picture film unless
a permit shall previously have been obtained from the superin-
tendent of police of the city. Examples of this nature
might be greatly multiplied, but no case could be cited
where after censorship had been given a fair trial it
was shown to be a failure and eliminated. It is remark-
able that in spite of the sincere and expensive agitation on the
'"This Board" (the Japanese Board of Censorship of motion pictures)
"belongs to the police department of every prefecture in Japan where one
or two men can accept or reject any picture they wish. This Board is under
the police department functioning under each local government. It is a
part, however, of the Imperial Interior Department. It regulates, both on
the administrative and judicial sides, the producer, the exhibitor, the audience
and others connected with motion pictures as well as the films by inspection."
The Bulletin of the Affiliated Committees for Better Films, Vol. IV, No. 5,
May, 1920.
70 MOTION PICTURES
part of the industry to get rid of what they believe to be the
curse of their business, not one censorship victory of any impor-
tance, either in the courts or in the balloting by the people, has
been placed to their credit. The extent of the battle for censor-
ship in this country may be judged by the statement made in
Wid's Year Book for 1920 to the effect that the Censorship
Committee of the National Association of the Motion Picture
Industry would fight censorship in thirty-six states during the
winter of 1921. This in itself is an indication of the hold which
the idea of state censorship has on the people of the United
States. It may be said without fear of serious contradiction
that censorship has not grown more rapidly than the industry
itself, and, therefore, cannot be called a mushroom growth
by the industry, nor can it be said to be a failure in
view of its rapid gain in popularity, unless facts are produced
to show that it has seriously injured the industry without cor-
respondingly greater benefits to the public.
Realizing, then, that censorship is not a passing phenomenon,
and that state censorship is one of its most important Jorms, it
is advisable to consider the mechanical details thereof as pro-
vided by legislative enactments. The usual number of members
of state censorship boards is three, the only exception to this
rule being Ohio, and even in this case there are two assistants to
the chief of the Division of Film Censorship of the Department
of Education. Before the Reorganization Bill of July 1, 1921,
there were also three members of the Ohio board of censors.
Appointment to office is by the governor of the state, with or
without the consent and advice of the senate, the appointment
usually being for a term of three years. Appointees are sup-
posed to be qualified by education and experience to fulfill the
duties attendant upon their office. All films must be submitted
to the board for approval before being exhibited within the
territory of the state. The board is given general instructions
to approve films which are educational or afford harmless
amusement, and is to disapprove all that are harmful, immoral,
sacrilegious, indecent, or likely to stir up race or class hatred.
Films may be disapproved in whole or in part for violations of
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 71
the above standards in action or in theme. Recourse may be
had by the producer to the courts of the state in case it is his
belief that the rejection of his film was without adequate reason.
Violations of the rules and decisions of the boards of censors are
punished by fines of from a few dollars on up to a few hundred.
Jail sentences are also possible in a number of cases, but this
amounts to little more than a possibility in actual practice.
This, in bare outline, includes the important common features
of the existing state censorship acts, as provided by law. It
does not, however, tell the entire story.
The arguments against censorship are, as is to be expected,
best stated by officials of the industry, though there are many
entirely disinterested people who are opposed to censorship on
principle. Their ideas, however, have been adopted by the
industry and need not be discussed separately.
Possibly the first argument advanced against censorship was
the one that censorship of motion pictures constitutes a violation
of the inalienable principle of freedom of speech The Pennsyl-
vania act of Assembly of June 19, 1911, creating a board of
censors was promptly challenged on grounds of unconstitutional-
ly. The final decision in this case, as in every other case based
on similar grounds, was in favor of the principle of previewing
censorship.
In the case of Jake Block, Nathan Wolf, et al. f vs. The City
of Chicago, 23*9 Illinois Supreme Court Reports, page 251, the
legality of a city censorship was upheld by the court in an
opinion which maintained the following principles:
" (1) The City has power to regulate the motion picture busi-
ness;
"(2) That an ordinance passed under express powers cannot be
held void or unreasonable;
"(3) That the ordinance is not invalid because the Chief of
Police is to determine whether the pictures are obscene or
immoral ;
72
MOTION PICTURES
'(4) That the ordinance prohibiting the exhibition of immoral,
or obscene pictures is not invalid because it fixes no definite
or certain standard;
"(5) That a picture may be immoral, although it illustrates
scenes connected with history; and
" (6) That a person is not deprived of his constitutional rights
without due process of law when not permitted to show a
picture that violates the provisions of the ordinance." l
The decision of the Illinois Supreme Court which embodies
these principles in accordance with the general legal opinion
throughout the United States, and the positions taken by the
court, may be considered as typical of the legal views on the
question raised.
Two cases were taken to the Supreme Court of the United
States and decisions were handed down by that court during
e October term of 1915. These were the case of the Mutual
Film Corporation vs. the Ohio Industrial Commission, 236 U. S.
Supreme Court Reports, pp. 240 to 248, and the case of the
Mutual Film Corporation vs. George H. Hodge, Governor of Kansas,
236 U. S. Supreme Court Reports, p. 257. Both cases were
argued on the same grounds, namely, that the censorship statute
in question imposed an unlawful burden on interstate commerce ;
that it violated the principle of freedom of speech and publica-
tion; and that it attempted to delegate legislative power to
censors. Mr. Justice McKenna rendered the decision, and
upheld the validity of both the Ohio and the Kansas censorship act.
Much of his decision in the Ohio case is included in a footnote,
which follows, and in Appendix F, for the reason that he has care-
fully discussed the points in question, and that, although his stand
was definitely against the allegations of the Mutual Film Cor-
poration on all points of constitutionality which were raised,
the opponents of censorship still continue to argue the case with
statements concerning the limitation of the right of freedom of
speech and of the press, and the deprivation of property without
1 Chicago Motion Picture Commission, Report, September, 1920, p. 12.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 73
due process of law. > Those phrases have long been recognized
1 "Where provisions for censorship of moving pictures relate only to films
intended for exhibition within the State and they are distributed to persons
within the State for exhibition, there is no burden imposed on interstate
commerce.
"The doctrine of original package does not extend to moving picture films
transported, delivered and used as shown in the record in this case, although
manufactured in, and brought from, another State.
" Moving picture films brought from another State to be rented or sold by
the consignee to exhibitors, are in consumption and mingled as much as from
their nature they can be with other property of the State and subject to its
otherwise valid police regulation, even before the consignee delivers to the
exhibitor.
"The judicial sense, supporting the common sense of this country, sustains
the exercise of the police power of regulation of moving picture exhibitions.
"The exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated
and conducted for profit like other spectacles, and not to be regarded as part
of the press of the country or as organs of public opinion within the meaning of
freedom of speech and publication guaranteed by the constitution of Ohio.
"This court will not anticipate the decision of the state court as to the
application of a police statute of the State to a state of facts not involved in
the record of the case before it. Quaere, whether moving pictures exhibited in
places other than places of amusement should fall within the provisions of the
censorship statute of Ohio.
" While administration and legislation are distinct powers and the line that
separates their exercise is not easily defined, the legislature must declare the
policy of the law and fix the legal principles to control in given cases, and an
administrative body may be clothed with power to ascertain facts and con-
ditions to which such policy and principles apply.
"It is impossible to exactly specify such application in every instance, and
the general terms of censorship, while furnishing no exact standard of require-
ments may get precision from the sense and experience of men and become
certain and useful guides in reasoning and conduct
"The moving picture censorship act of Ohio of 1915, is not in violation of
the Federal Constitution or the constitution of the State of Ohio, either as
depriving the owners of moving pictures of their property without due process
of law or as a burden on interstate commerce, or as abridging freedom and
liberty of speech and opinion, or as delegating legislative authority to adminis-
trative officers."
Mutual Film Corporation vs. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 256 United
States Supreme Court Reports, p. 230.
74 MOTION PICTURES
to have excellent value as slogans, and a group of court decisions,
including two by the United States Supreme Court, will not
find it easy to drive them out of use. x
Another frequently used argument against censorship is the
statement that it is unnecessary. 2 It is unnecessary, it is
claimed, first, because pictures shown contain little that could
be harmful to the community. The amount of harmful material
they actually contain may be judged by the fact that as has been
previously mentioned, no important survey of the contents of
motion pictures has failed to find a considerable proportion of
American motion pictures to contain socially undesirable ele-
ments. A better grounded reason for the lack of necessity for
censorship is the belief that there are other more effective or less
objectionable ways of accomplishing the same results.
J Public opinion, for example, will in the long run undoubtedly
[ have an effect in the process of eliminating the socially unde-
' l The United States Supreme Court decided that compulsory previewing
of motion pictures was constitutional in 1915. (See Appendix F for de-
tails of this decision.) The following quotation taken from a pamphlet issued
in opposition to state censorship since that year, but does not seem to have
been affected by the Supreme Court decisions.
"The Constitution of the United States and those of the several states
guarantee the freedom of speech and the press. Motion pictures have arisen
since the framing of the constitutions, but they are obviously a means whereby
opinions are expressed, and as such they are entitled to the same right of
liberty as is accorded speech and press." A Garden of American Motion
Pictures, published by the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures,
January, 1920, p. 24.
2 The following telegram opposing the adoption of House of Representa-
tive Bill 456 is typical of much of the opposition to legalized censorship and
assumes great significance when it is remembered that the motion picture
mentioned in it was one which many serious and responsible citizens and
officials of this country believed likely to cause race difficulties. It was for
this reason that it was censored in many parts of the United States. The
telegram, which is apparently intended as a serious argument against censor-
ship in general and of one picture in particular, pays no attention whatever
to the point at issue, that of public safety.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 75
sirable. In support of this method of improving the standards
of the industry is offered the admitted change which has come
about in the type of pictures which are being exhibited. The
wild west picture is a thing of the past, so far as the better houses
are concerned, though the old-time thriller is still being shown
in many of the cheaper theatres. Similarly, the "vamp" is no
longer the popular favorite in screen plays that she was but
a few years ago. Other examples could readily be shown of the
trend away from the more crude appeals to the emotions. The
leading pictures of the past year have been sensual, elaborate
"New York, N. Y.
"Hon. James E. Martine,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
" Censorship of motion pictures is the most dangerous attack on American
liberty since the foundation of the Republic. The motion picture is a process
of recording thought on yellow parchment without the use of printer's ink,
and is as great an advance on printing as Guttenberg's invention was over the
quill and pen. The printing press revolutionized the world by bringing
knowledge within the reach of hundreds of millions. To strangle this great
art in its infancy will be a crime against humanity. Free speech is the founda-
tion of our Republic. There is no reason for censorship. The motion picture
show is now cleaner than the spoken drama or the press. The police powersf
of the State are already ample. Any citizen can close a theatre within an!
hour if the laws of morality are violated. A censorship of opinion is the aimj
of our enemies. Our fathers fled the Old World to escape this and founded]
the Republic to free the human mind from shackles. Shall we go back to thd
dark ages? I first preached the Clansman as a sermon. No censor daredi
to silence my pulpit. I turned my sermon into a lecture and delivered it V
from Maine to California without license. I turned the lecture into a novel I
and no censor has yet stopped the press of Doubleday, Page & Co. I turned }
the novel into a spoken play, and no censor has dared to interfere. I turned
the play into a motion picture, and it has cost me $75,000 in lawyers' fees ;
to fight the local censors the first ten months. This condition of affairs is
infamous. It is the immediate duty of Congress to reffirm the principle/
of free speech in America and abolish all censors.
(Signed) THOMAS DIXON."
Hearings before the Committee on Educatoin, House of Representatives,
January 13-19, 1916, p. 236.
76 MOTION PICTURES
portrayals of Oriental life. A third type of picture can be seen
to be gathering popularity, the picture which is based on a story
of known merit, written by authors of literary ability, played by
actors who have acting ability. It is not difficult to see how
this change has been brought about by the censorship power of
public opinion, but public opinion by itself, unsupported by
some authorities who will review all plays, and not only those
shown in the convenient theatres of a respectable nature, cannot
, reach half of the productions that are being reached by the
/ Pennsylvania system. It is the fraction that public opinion
* cannot reach that needs attention.
In the third place, state censorship is said to be unnecessary
because there already exist officials with all the requisite legal
authority to eliminate the obscene and immoral pictures. This
point has already been discussed in such a way as to show that
although there seems to be little wrong with the theory involved,
it has not proved satisfactory in practice.
Again, it is the claim of the National Board, for example,
that parents are in duty bound to supervise the recreation of
their children and to see to it that only the better type of picture
is patronized. The cry that the United States is becoming too
/ paternalistic has been raised, and the motion picture interests
' have seized with joy on this anti-censorship slogan, which seems
/ to be especially powerful at the present time. The opponents
j of motion picture censorship forget that the same cry of paternal-
ism was raised against compulsory education at its inception.
They forget that the "let alone" policy has been abandoned
after repeated and successful trials of an opposite policy by our
government in cases where the public welfare was concerned.
The possible anti-social effects of motion pictures are such as to
justify governmental interference for the welfare of the nation,
and until the facts show that clean pictures alone will be pro-
duced and exhibited without governmental regulation the laws
of the nation must be "paternalistic". While it is conceivable
that 99 per cent, of the industry may reach that stage when they
will give the public only that which is in accord with the accepted
social standards, it would be an unusual situation were the
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION
77
entire trade to refrain from wrongfully capitalizing the human /
emotions of its patrons if free from legal supervision. We may
assume that most business organizations are as interested in the
public welfare as the motion picture business, yet the Federal '
Trade Commission is still functioning to good effect, and without
too much hardship on the better groups under their supervision.
Finally, state censorship is claimed to be unnecessary for the
reason that the necessary censoring could be done more efficiently
by the producers themselves at the source. The most practical
way of doing this which has as yet been evolved is that of volun-
tary co-operation with the public through the National Board of
Review in New York City. As has been previously shown,
mere recommendation of eliminations without power of com-
pelling compliance is at best an ineffective weapon to use against
an institution so widespread and powerful as motion pictures.
The remaining arguments against legal censorship are that it
is impossible for any legally constituted body to decide what
the people should and what they should not see; that censorship
ruins the plays; that censorship is for the protection of children,
and should not apply to all plays, since adults also have rights;
that censorship officials have proved incompetent in the past,
and therefore always will; and that boards of censorship are
after all only allowed to exist because they furnish sinecures for
the friends of the political powers that be, and are consequently
a source of graft. These, with the previously mentioned argu-
ments, seem to be the most important evidences which have been
brought forth against censorship by the motion picture industry. *
1 The National Board of Review in its campaign for "selection, not censor-
ship" as the solution of motion picture problems, holds that censorship, state
and federal, has been rejected for the following reasons:
"Censorship is an invasion of consitutional rights" in that it limits freedom
of speech and the press; it is a "defiance of democratic principles" because it
empowers a small group to decide what the people may see, and "takes away
' from local authorities who are elected by the people power to regulate the
-pictures shown in their own communities"; it is a failure because there is
no hope of censors' uniform decisions, as has been shown by not uncommon
disagreements between existing censors; it is undesirable because there is "nox
I
78 MOTION PICTURES
They have been culled from a large number of articles in trade
journals, from speeches before legislatures, committees of inves-
tigation, and other more general audiences by the defenders of
freedom of production; and from the more formal arguments
which the legal advisors of the industry have laid before the
courts and voters of this country. It would be reasonable to
suppose that in the case where a bill for state censorship which
had passed the legislature of that state and was up for con-
sideration by the voters at an election to decide whether or not
it should go into effect, the briefs for and against the bill filed
with the secretary of the commonwealth in accordance with the
law would contain the very best of the evidence on the subject
under contest. Such a bill is pending in Massachusetts at the
present time, yet the arguments on both sides filed with the
Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are given
without reference to supporting facts, and in many cases would
be difficult of proof.
There is considerable basis for the statement that it is practi-
cally impossible for any legally constituted body of officials
properly to decide what should and what should not be shown
on the screen. Opinions will vary, especially in different parts of
the country. They will even vary as between members of the
same board. Examples of this are not uncommon, and are not
infrequently brought forth to show the impracticability of any
legal censorship. It might be mentioned that it is not altogether
an uncommon occurrence for judges of the highest court in the
United States to disagree, yet the court is still functioning in a
valuable way. While boards of censors do have differences of
popular demand for censorship"; it is unjust because "Compared with
other forms of dramatic entertainment, the motion picture is the least objec-
tionable on the score of morals. To single it out for censorship, therefore,
is on the face of it indefensibly unjust and stupid"; lastly, "censorship is no
solution for the child problem," because it cannot eliminate melodrama or
make the screen a "commendable entertainment for children," and in the
second place, "nobody has any business to try to do this."
f' National Board of Review of Motion Pictures, A Garden of American
I Motion Pictures, January 1920, p. 24.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 79
opinion, as to the moral value of individual scenes or pictures,
it is difference not in the fundamental principles involved, but
in the occasional application of standards which have been shown
to be generally accepted. These differences are therefore not
such as to render the boards any more useless than differences of
opinion of the members of the United States Supreme Court
render that court useless. They are differences of interpretation
which will iron themselves out as such questions are more and
more freely discussed. It must not be forgotten, however, that
there is cause for dissatisfaction in so far as these differences of
interpretation are due to incompetency, carelessness and wilful
disregard of duty for personal reasons.
Many plays have been ruined by the slashing of the censors,
with an attendant loss to the producers. Much of the slashing
has been of doubtful value. It is doubtful whether the elimina-
tion of scenes in which Carmen was shown smoking was necessary
in order to protect minds in the making. There are innumerable
other equally ludicrous examples of narrow-minded censorship
by officials who were unfitted for the positions they held. But
such errors are a small part of the work done, and are outweighed
by other better advised acts. l In the report of the Pennsyl-
vania Board of Censors for the year ending November 30, 1918,
1 Titles of motion picture plays, like titles of books and legitimate drama,
are not always truly representative of the contents, but there is in most
cases a correlation between name and subject matter. Some indication of the
kind of picture the Pennsylvania censors eliminate may therefore be gained
from the following titles of subjects disapproved by them. This list is taken
at random from a complete enumeration of disapproved subjects, and is
typical of the entire list.
"The Toreadors," "Traffic in Souls," "Traffickers on Soles," "Trapped in
the Great Metropolis, " "The Triumph of Venus," "Trooper 44," "True
Love, or the Mighty Prince," "The Truth about Twilight Sleep," "Twi-
light," "Twilight Sleep," "The Unborn," "Unfaithful," "The Un-
pardonable Sin," "Up from the depths."
The list of which these titles formed a part was one of over three hundred
similar titles of disapproved subjects, and they are in no way exceptional.
List of Disapproved Subjects, Pennsylvania State Board of Censors, 1921.
80 MOTION PICTURES
thirteen appeals are listed as having been taken from decisions
by the board to the courts of the state. In none of these cases
was the judgment of the board reversed. These appeals cover
the period from August 1915 until June 1918, or almost three
years, yet in that time, in spite of the constant efforts to show
the inefficiency of censorship, the courts did not once consider the
board to have been in error, according to the report of the
Pennsylvania Board of Censors. Immediately upon the taking
of office by the New York board, a storm of protest against its
decisions was raised by the industry. Thus far no decision of
the New York board has been reversed by the New York Courts.
Had there been any grave cause for complaint it is not unreason-
able to assume that the courts would have recognized it in their
decisions.
The chairman of the Kansas board of censors receives an
annual salary of eighteen hundred dollars; the other members
receive fifteen hundred dollars. The Pennsylvania Act of 1915
provides that the chairman shall receive three thousand dollars,
the vice-chairman, two thousand, five hundred dollars, and the
secretary, two thousand, four hundred dollars. Under the Ohio
act of 1915 each member of the board received fifteen hundred
dollars. The pay in Maryland was fixed by the legislature at
twenty-four hundred dollars. These are in sharp contrast to
the recent New York statute, which fixes the remumeration of
each commissioner at seven thousand, five hundred dollars.
These figures furnish an explanation of some of the things that
have happened in the various states. In the first four states
named above it has been impossible to get men of first-class
calibre to take the office of censor unless, as has notably been the
case in two or three instances, some person of ability happened
to be willing to sacrifice money and time in order to be able to
be of service. In New York State, where the salaries were
adequate it turned out that the three censorship offices were
much too valuable as political plums to waste on people who
were not politically valuable to the appointing power, and the
consequent appointment of three people not entirely unknown
politically to a position needing men and women of "training and
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 81
education fitting them for the duties of the office" was not
unexpected, though in fairness it must be added that the New
York Board has done well in the brief time it has been func-
tioning.
The claim that the cost of censorship is too great a burden is
hardly worthy of consideration. Censorship boards belong to
that increasing group of state departments which are self-sup-
porting in that they need no appropriations from the state
treasury for their support. Fees of from one to three dollars
for the approval of each reel of 1,000 feet of film, together with
fines for violations of censorship regulations, have been found to
be sufficient for the payment of the salaries and incidental
expenses connected with the carrying out of censoring duties.
In view of the large salaries paid to stars, the large rentals
charged for films, and the general prosperity of the industry, it
would be difficult to show that even much greater charges would
materially affect its welfare. 1 Most of the protests against
censorship are founded on assumptions or facts which are so
weak that the conclusions drawn from them are of little value,
and the claim that censorship costs are in excess of the resultant
value is possibly the worst founded of all.
1 The general arguments against censorship are so well known that they
require only brief comment here. More detailed information may be ob-
tained from the following sources:
Chicago Motion Picture Commission, Report of, September, 1920.
New York State Conference of Mayors, Report of the Special Committee on
Motion Pictures, Albany, N. Y., February 24, 1920.
General Federation of Women's Clubs, General Federation Magazine,
Vol. XVIII, No. 1, January, 1919, pp. 13 to 26 incl.
House of Representatives, Hearing before the Committee on Education on
H. R. 456, January 13-19, 1916.
National Board of Review of Motion Pictures, Objections to State Cen-
sorship of Motion Pictures, January, 1920; The Case Against Federal
Censorship of Motion Pictures, and other pamphlet and mimeographed
material on the subject which may be obtained from the National Board
apparently without limit.
82 MOTION PICTURES
IX
SUMMARY
Ii is unessential that any evidence be advanced to show that
the type of picture seen by motion picture audiences consisting
of millions of people of all ages and conditions influences their
thoughts and their subsequent activities. The belief that man's
conduct is the invariable result of the interaction of environment
and heredity is too widely accepted today to require any addi-
tional substantiating material. We may consider the principle
an established fact and make use of it as such by assuming
without a mass of detailed facts as proof that what is shown on
the motion picture screen will have a character-molding influence
of those who see it.
An analysis of standards of human conduct has been made in
an effort to discover a measure whereby to judge the type of
picture which is being shown in American motion picture theatres.
It was found that there existed a remarkable unanimity of
opinion among all interested groups, including the most vigorous
opponents of government censorship, concerning conduct
'C v j/ believed to be harmful to society. The origin and function of
moral codes both lie in group survival, and the forbidden acts
are determined by group opinion to be those which are believed,
' correctly or otherwise, to be detrimental to its existence. If any
civilized society is agreed on certain activities as being worthy of
its tabu it is of doubtful importance in a study of social legisla-
tion to inquire into their actual survival value. In the case
under consideration practical agreement has been found to exist
among those concerned, and it is only necessary for our purposes
to see to what extent, if at all, the accepted standards are being
violated in motion picture plays.
From a comparison of the results of numerous independent
investigations of motion pictures within recent years no other
conclusion can be reached than that many violations of the
acknowledged desirable social standards are continually being
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 83
shown on the screen in most communities without any penalty,
legal or social, being inflicted on those responsible for their
exhibition. An estimate placing the number of pictures tending
to have a harmful effect on motion picture patrons at 20 per cent. \
does not seem to be too high in the light of the evidence offered
by the only reliable social studies available. It is these pictures I
which necessitate some form of control. 1
We must not, however, fall into two common errors, errors of
extremist reformers who have neglected, possibly willfully, to
establish scientific foundations for their recommendations. It'
seems to be frequently assumed that motion picture producers,
exhibitors and actors are different from the rest of us, that they
are largely moral degenerates who would take joy in perverting
the screen by sordid pictures even though there were no financial
gain involved. The newspaper gossip of drunkenness, murders
and gay life among the members of the industry is pointed out
as evidence of this moral perversion, and sermons have been
preached, legislation has been proposed, not against the few
under suspicion but against the entire industry. Such reasoning
is of course entirely fallacious and barely worth mentioning, for
only a small, though annoying following can be acquired and
held through the spreading of such unfounded general slander.
That the motion picture people, business men, directors and
actors, are neither better nor worse than the rest of the popula-
tion must be acknowledged by anyone who has come into any
considerable contact with them, and would not need space here
were it not for the ever present fanatic. To call attention to
this error is sufficient to dispose of it.
The second common error of reformers is the basing of decisions
concerning the influence of motion pictures on insufficient or
1 The National Board of Motion Pictures Review is probably one of the
most oflf^ervaHve bodies which pass on motion pictures with regard to the
number of eliminations requested. A few samples of their eliminations,
selected at random, indicative of what may be shown in 42 states of the
Union without legal penalty, are quoted in Appendix E.
84 MOTION PICTURES
unscientific evidence. 1 To go to motion picture theatres a
few times and then absolve or condemn all productions sounds
foolish, yet too often that is exactly what is done. Considering
the present size of the industry which is releasing for distribution
to exhibitors over fifteen feature pictures and any number of
shorter subjects every week it is evident that no one man is
qualified to pass judgment unless he has devoted more time than
the ordinary critic to the study of the situation. He must rely
on what has been found by such investigations as have been
mentioned in a previous chapter. It is to be regretted that
they are as few and as inaccessible as they are. These investi-
gations while they have their faults are a relatively safe indica-
tion of the trend in motion pictures if they are properly weighted
with reference to the undesirable peculiarities which every report
has in the way of personal, religious or sectional bias, unwise
sampling, and the like. The records of the eliminations of legal
boards of censorship are also available in many cases and furnish
good indication of the undesirable features in motion pictures
in the sections which do not have censorship, since the same
pictures are shown in all parts of the country with comparatively
1 An example of the type of investigation the value of which is considerably
lowered by the use of too many untrained, unco-ordinated apparently randomly
selected investigators whose judgments were based on vague and possibly
unfortunate standards of conduct, is that made in Portland, Oregon, in
1914, the results of which were published in the Reed College Record, No. 16,
September, 1914.
An equally unsatisfactory investigation made by means of the questionnaire
method by one of the leading producers of the country has just been completed.
The questionnaire was sent broadcast to all parts of the world where American
pictures are shown. It is a well-known fact that people engaged in literary
work are overwhelmingly opposed to censorship yet it seems that an impartial
answer to the question "Do picturegoers make a more efficient censorship
authority than a politically controlled committee?" was asked. It is to be
wondered what particular qualification newspaper editors have for answering
the question "What has been the influence of the motion picture on home
and community life during the past ten years?" See, Moving Picture World,
Vol. LV, No. 5, April 1, 1922.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 85
little elimination save by censors. Inaccurate observations and
unjustified interpretations are important causes of avoidable
difficulties between the factions interested, and with many
sources of information available as there are to those who are
willing to hunt, such errors are inexcusable.
i * ft
r ^ .-< t^fff
Granting that mistakes by reformers and others have been
numerous, it must nevertheless be admitted that all is not as it j^ ,.'
should be and that some means of eliminating a relatively infre-
quent though important type of picture should be put into effect
throughout the country. One of the most glibly offered sugges-
tions is that education is the only sound solution to the problem.
Parents, for example, must be educated so that they will be the
censors for their children. It is not the function, say the
adherents to this policy, of the state to usurp the offices of par-
ents, but only to train them so that they may perform their
natural duties in the best possible way. This assumes that
censorship is for children only and that the present difficulties are
not of such importance as to require any immediate action,
neither of which assumptions has been shown to be accurate.
It is education, say these same people, that must raise the
standards to such a high moral plane that the motion picture
industry will be compelled to produce only clean pictures on
account of the general boycotting which all others will receive.
Some of the difficulties with this program are that this again
overlooks the immediate problems, that the pictures are them-
selves a part of our educational system and to some extent
afford exactly the wrong type of education, and that human
ingenuity .has never succeeded is entirely eliminating the morally
"submerged tenth" from any fair-sized civilization. Until these
objections are overcome education can only be a part, though a
not unimportant part, in any well rounded program for the
social regulation of motion pictures.
/
/
'
Thejchurch has also been suggested as the agency by means of
which the undesirable motion pictures may be removed from our
86 MOTION PICTURES
theatres. J The objections which apply to education as the
sole means of purification also apply to the use of this institution
without the support of some other agency for the handling of
the stubborn minority which cannot be reached through moral
exhortation.
. Another group of people who might be described as adherents
/ to the theory of natural law believe that if left to herself nature
will work out her own salvation. Public opinion, it is said, will
eventually force undesirable pictures out of the market without
any teleological interference by reformers. A time will come
when if the pictures of today are detrimental to the social group
they will by the very nature of things be driven out without any
prohibitory legislation. While there is an appreciable element
of truth in this belief, its adherents forget that it is largely
through the efforts of objectors to things as they are that they
' : are changed to an approximation of what they should be. It is
also forgotten, as it is by every other opponent to legal control of
motion pictures, that as we have already mentioned several
times, we cannot hope to have all people govern their activities
in accordance with the needs of social welfare without some
means of compelling the small fringe of outlaws to become law
abiding. We have general agreement in the general principle
of the sanctity of human life but policemen are needed to keep
down the number of violations of the principle by the few who
1 The publications of the National Board of Review continually stress the
strength of motion pictures in the fields of education, religion and general
training. For example, see the Bulletin of the Affiliated Committees for
Better Films, Vol. IV, No. 8, September 1920; Vol. II, No. 9, October, 1918;
Vol. V, No. 7, July, 1921; Vol. II, No. 7, July, 1918.
The manner in which the Women's Alliance has attempted to handle the
f motion picture problem, and it has met with considerable success, through the
formation of committees of representatives of churches, schools, clubs and
others, including the managers of theatres included in the district of each
^ committee, and through co-operation with the National Board of Review, is
outlined in the Social Hygiene Bulletin, Vol. VIII, No. 6, June 1921. A
summary of this is included in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
Vol. XII, No. 2, August 1921.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 87
for some reason are not willing to conform. We cannot hope
that a policy of non interference will work out satisfactorily any
more than will a purely educationsl policy, or a chucrh guardian-
ship of morals policy, no matter how desirable in the abstract
any one of these policies would be. They are necessary as a
part of a constructive program, but with motion pictures and
human personality as they are today some negative program is
also required.
The National Board of Review of Motion pictures as a negative
and a positive agency has also been discussed, as have some of the
most important variations of legal control. It has been found
that the National Board has not been successful and cannot
succeed in the purpose for which it was created. The very
change in its emphasis from censorship to review to selection is
evidence that it has fallen down in its attempt to deal with the
situation. While it can be a great positive influence in the "1
industry through its selective program, it is evident that what is
needed for it to be considered the only necessary agency of
control is some power to compel obedience. The state alone j
has that power. ~"
It would seem desirable at first glance to have uniform control )
of motion pictures through the federal government throughout
the entire United States. However at the present time this
would be inadvisable due to the differences of public opinion on
the principle of censorship and to the lack of existing and pro-
posed feasible means for recognizing that pictures which are
passable in so far as one section of the country is concerned may '
result in racial trouble, labor difficulties or other mob violence
when shown in another section. Federal censorship legislation,
or uniform state legislation, is the goal towards which the efforts
of those who have the welfare of the nation at heart should
strive, but until some means of centralization of authority and
localization of administration is devised a federal censorship act
would be unfortunate.
Meanwhile, the local units of government must be relied
upon to protect the community against the outlaw picture.
There are in all states and cities officials who have the authority
88 MOTION PICTURES
to prohibit the showing of lewd and immoral pictures, but due to
pressure of other duties or disinclination to interfere in a field
where regulation has always stirred up such violent reactions
from powerful sources, these local officials have not acted when
they were not compelled to do so. Whatever the cause,
existing public officials, chosen without specific reference to
motion picture regulation, have not been successful in hand-
ling the motion picture problem as a side line to their other
work. When members of the police force, for example,
have been specially assigned to the regulation of motion
pictures, a considerable degree of success has been achieved,
as in Chicago, but separate state censorship boards, not so
readily accessible to all theforces which all too frequently
interfere with our municipal protective officials, have achieved
better results, not only because they are less subject to external
pressure but also because the state is a much better administra-
tive unit from the point of view of the industry and of the censor
than the city. Some degree of unity is required, and since we
have shown the United States to be too large to be included
under one system under present conditions, and since there
are too many cities of varying social and political colors for any
great agreement of action to exist if each were to have a separate
board of censorship, the state is the logical choice as the present
regulative unit.
The contentions that censorship is unconstitutional, that it
violates the American principle of freedom of speech and of the
press, that it is unjust discrimination in view of the fact that
theatres are not similarly censored, that it is expensive to the
taxpayer and to the industry beyond its value to the nation,
that it cannot be put into effect on account of the lack of stand-
ards whereby to judge, and that it has failed where tried, cannot
be said to be supported by the facts in the case. The records of
the four state boards which have been functioning for a number
of years if studied contain sufficient material to overthrow these
arguments. Not all of the evidence on all of these points has
been included in this treatise. Space would not permit. Much
more, however, has been considered than has been cited, and
there has been a conscientious attempt to present a fair view of
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 89
the field. The evidence has been carefully weighed, and the
opponents of legal censorship have been given the benefit of every
doubt. The only possible conclusion is that legal censorship is
justified by conditions in the motion picture industry which have
been unavoidable, and that for many years to come the most
desirable form of censorship will be that which is under
direct state control.
90
MOTION PICTURES
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A
By a compilation made by the Morosco interests, and printed
in the Philadelphia Evening Ledger, September 9, 1921, the
number of motion picture theatres in the country was found to
be 17,824, distributed by cities and states as follows:
IN TWENTY-NINE CHIEF CITIES
Greater New York 604
Chicago 345
Philadelphia 194
Detroit 168
Cleveland 157
Pittsburgh 121
Los Angeles 102
St. Louis 100
Baltimore 96
Buffalo 89
San Francisco 86
Minneapolis 75
Milwaukee 66
Indianapolis 61
Boston 60
Portland, Ore 51
Newark, N. J 51
Syracuse 51
Kansas City 49
Washington 48
New Orleans 48
Columbus, O 45
Seattle. . .
Oakland. .
Cincinnati .
St. Paul . .
Rochester .
Denver. . .
Omaha. .
45
44
42
42
42
40
35
IN THE STATES
Alabama 196 Georgia 219
Arizona 93 Idaho 158
Arkansas 239 Illinois 1027
California 676 Indiana 602
Colorado 260
Connecticut... 122
Iowa. .
Kansas .
359
429
Delaware 35 Kentucky 252
Florida 158 Louisiana.. 241
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION
91
Maine 255
Maryland 177
Massachusetts 558
Michigan 459
Minnesota 618
Mississippi 118
Missouri 681
Montana 161
Nebraska 481
Nevada 30
New Hampshire 132
New Jersey 370
New Mexico 84
New York 1695
North Carolina 203
North Dakota .. 315
Ohio 1095
Oklahoma 343
Oregon 249
Pennsylvania 1533
Rhode Island 49
South Carolina 119
South Dakota 246
Tennessee 198
Texas 839
Utah 157
Vermont 53
Virginia 396
Washington 343
West Virginia 191
Wisconsin 498
Wyoming 67
APPENDIX B
Comparative imports of Motion-Picture Film into the United
States from all Countries and from Five European Countries
(England, France, Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom),
for Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 1911 to 1918, and Calendar
Years 1918 to 1921.
YEARS
1911..
1912..
1913..
1914..
1915..
1916..
1917..
1918..
1919..
1919..
1920..
192 Ib.
ALL
SELECTED
COUNTRIES
COUNTRIES
LINEAR FEET
LINEAR FEET
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
44,717,000
44,243,000
61,402,000
61,401,000
58,491,000
58,488,000
52,294,000
52,292,000
47,463,000
47,368,000
25,709,000
25,614,000
13,747,000
13,502,000
99,829,000
99,716,000
122,975,000
120,551,000
92
MOTION PICTURES
EXPOSED
ALL SELECTED
YEARS COUNTRIES COUNTRIES
LINEAR FEET LINEAR FEET
1911 11,725,000 10,422,000
1912 14,275,000 12,710,000
1913 15,674,000 13,880,000
1914 20,057,000 18,106,000
1915 10,789,000 9,150,000
1916 7,507,000 6,520,000
1917 5,835,000 3,738,000
1918 4,088,000 3,191,000
1919 2,268,000 1,670,000
1919 2,920,000 2,002,000
1920 6,233,000 4,385,000
1921b 7,375,000 5,601,000
TOTAL
ALL SELECTED
YEARS COUNTRIES COUNTRIES
LINEAR FEET LINEAR FEET
1911 11,725,000 10,422,000
1912 14,275,000 12,710,000
1913 15,674,000 13,880,000
1914 64,774,000 62,349,000
1915 72,192,000 70,551,000
1916 65,998,000 65,008,000
1917 58,130,000 56,029,000
1918 51,551,000 50,559,000
1919 27,977,000 27,314,000
1919 16,667,000 15,505,000
1920 106,062,000 104,091,000
1921b 130,349,000 126,152,000
a Figures prior to 1914 are not available,
b Nine months ending Sept. 30.
Imports of Motion-Picture Film into the United States for
Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 1911 to 1918, and for Calendar
Years 1918 to 1921.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION
93
YEARS
LINEAR FEET
VALUE
1911
11,725,000
$685,000
1912
14,275,000
1,004,000
1913
15,674,000
1,331,000
1914
20,057,000
1,412,000
1915
10,789,000
671,000
1916
7,507,000
482,000
1917
5,835,000
675,000
1918
4,088,000
343,000
1919
2,268,000
293,000
1919
2,920,000
500,000
1920
6,233,000
933,000
1921b
7,375,000
1,060,000
YEARS
1911
LINEAR FEET
(a)
VALUE
(a)
1912
(a)
(a)
1913
(a)
(a)
1914
44,717,000
$890,000
1915
61,402,000
968,000
1916
58,491,000
750,000
1917
52,294,000
802,000
1918
47,463,000
739,000
1919
25,709,000
420,000
1919
13,747,000
283,000
1920
99,829,000
1,698,000
1921b
122,975,000
2,338,000
YEARS
1911
LINEAR FEET
11,725,000
VALUE
$685,000
1912
14,275,000
1,004,000
1913
15,674,000
1,331,000
1914
64,774,000
2,302,000
1915
72,192,000
1,639,000
1916
65,998,000
1,232,000
1917
58,130,000
1,478,000
1918
51,551,000
1,082,000
MOTION PICTURES
1919..
1919..
1920..
1921b.
27,977,000 713,000
16,667,000 783,000
106,062,000 2,631,000
130,349,000 3,397,000
a Figures not available prior to 1914.
b Nine months ending Sept. 30.
United States Exports of Motion-Picture Film for Fiscal
Years Ending June 30, 1913 to 1918, and Calendar Years 1918
to 1921.
YEARS
1913
EXPOSED
LINEAR FEET
32,192,000
UNEXPOSED
LINEAR FEET
80,035,000
TOTAL
LINEAR FEET
112,227,000
1914
32,690,000
155,360 000
192,050,000
1915
35,987,000
115,067,000
150,054,000
1916
158,752,000
72,299,000
231,051,000
1917
128,550,000
49,486 000
178,036,000
1918
84,547,000
57,995,000
142,542,000
1918
79,888,000
71,549,000
151,437,000
1919
153,237,000
120,042,000
273,279 000
1920....
175,233,000
62 915 000
238 148 000
1921..
111.585.000
31.015.000
142.600.000
a Nine months ending Sept. 30.
U. S. Department of Commerce, Commerce Reports, January 2, 1922, p. 34 ff .
APPENDIX C
English Censorship Rules
Pictures containing the following are condemned:
(1) Materialization of the conventional figure of Christ.
(2) Unauthorized use of Royal names, public characters, and
well-known members of society.
(3) Inflammatory political sub-titles.
(4) Indecorous and inexpedient titles and sub-titles.
(5) Sub-titles in the nature of swearing.
(6) Cruelty to animals, including cock-fights.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 95
(7) Irreverent treatment of religious observances and beliefs.
(8) Making young girls drunk.
(9) Excessive drunkenness.
(10) Brutality and torture to women.
(11) Subjects in which crime is the dominant feature.
(12) Commitment of crime by children.
(13) Criminal poisoning by dissemination of germs.
(14) The practice of the third degree in the United States.
(15) Cumulative effect of crime.
(16) Murders with realistic and gruesome details.
(17) Executions and crucifixions.
(18) Cruelty to children.
(19) Excessive cruelty and torture to adults.
(20) Fights showing extreme brutality and gruesome details.
(21) Gruesome incidents.
(22) Actual scenes of branding men and animals.
(23) Women fighting with knives.
(24) Doubtful characters exalted to heroes.
(25) Nude figures.
(26) Offensive vulgarity and indecent gestures.
(27) Improper exhibition of feminine underclothing.
(28) Impropriety in dress.
(29) Indecorous dancing.
(30) Reference to controversial or international politics.
(31) Scenes calculated to inflame racial hatred.
(32) Incidents having a tendency to disparage friendly rela-
tions with our Allies.
(33) Scenes dealing with India and other Dependencies by
which the religious beliefs and racial susceptibilities of
their people may be wounded.
(34) Antagonistic relations of Capital and Labour and scenes
showing conflict between the protagonists.
(35) Scenes tending to disparage public characters and public
institutions.
(36) Disparagement of the institution of marriage.
(37) Misrepresentation of police methods.
(38) Holding up the King's uniform to contempt or ridicule.
96 MOTION PICTURES
(39) Scenes in which British officers are seen in a discreditable
light in their relations with Eastern peoples.
(40) Prolonged and harrowing details in deathbed scenes.
(41) Medical operations.
(42) Excessive revolver shooting.
(43) Advocacy of the doctrine of free love.
(44) Seduction of girls and attempts thereat treated without
due restraint.
(45) Attempted criminal assaults on women.
(46) Scenes indicating that a criminal assault on a woman
has just been perpetrated.
(47) Salacious wit.
(48) "First night" scenes.
(49) Scenes dealing with, or suggestive of, immorality.
(50) Indelicate sexual situations.
(51) Holding up the sacrifice of a woman's virtue as laudable.
(52) Infidelity on the part of husband justifying adultery on
the part of wife.
(53) Bedroom and bathroom scenes of an equivocal character.
(54) Prostitution and procuration.
(55) Effect of venereal disease, inherited or acquired.
(56) Confinements and puerperal pains.
(57) Illegal operations.
(58) Deliberate adoption of a life of immorality, justifiable or
extenuated.
(59) Disorderly houses.
(60) Women promiscuously taking up men.
(61) Dead bodies.
(62) "Clutching hands."
(63) Subjects in which sympathy is enlisted for the criminals.
(64) Animals gnawing men and children.
(65) Realistic scenes of epilepsy.
(66) Trial scenes of important personages that are sub judice.
(67) Suggestion of incest.
The Times, London, Supplement, February 21, 1922, p. x.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 97
APPENDIX D
STANDARDS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF CENSORS
(1) The Board will condemn pictures, and parts of pictures,
dealing with "white slavery". The procuration and prostitution
in all forms, of girls, and their confinement for immoral purposes
may not be shown upon the screen, and will be disapproved.
Views of prostitutes and houses of ill-fame will be disapproved.
(2) Pictures, and parts of pictures, which deal with the seduc- i
tion of women, particularly the betrayal of young girls, and >
assaults upon women, with immoral intent, will be disapproved.
(3) Pre-natal and childbed scenes, and subtitles describing
them, will be disapproved.
(4) Pictures, and parts of pictures, dealing with the drug
habit; e. g., t e use of opium, morphine, cocaine, etc., will be /
disapproved. The traffic in habit-forming drugs is forbidden
and visualized scenes of their use will be disapproved.
(5) Scenes showing the modus operandi of criminals which
are suggestive and incite to evil action, such as murder, poison-
ing, house-breaking, safe-robbery, pocket-picking, the lighting
and throwing of bombs, the use of ether, chloroform, etc., to
render men and women unconscious, binding and gagging, will
be disapproved.
(6) Gruesome and unduly distressing scenes will be disap-
proved. These include shooting, stabbing, profuse bleeding,
prolonged views of men dying and of corpses, lashing and whip-
ping, and other torture scenes, hangings, lynchings, electrocu-
tions, surgical operations, and views of persons in delirium or
insane.
(7) Studio and other scenes, in which the human form is
shown in the nude or the body is unduly exposed, will be dis-
approved.
(8) Pictures, and parts of pictures, dealing with abortion and
malpractice, will be disapproved. These will include themse j
and incidents having to do with eugenics, "birth control", '
"race suicide" and similar subjects.
98 MOTION PICTURES
(9) Stories, or scenes holding up to ridicule and reproach
races, classes, or other social groups, as well as the irreverent and
sacrilegious treatment of religious bodies or other things held
to be sacred will be disapproved. The materialization of the
figure of Christ may be disapproved.
(10) Pictures which deal with counterfeiting, will be dis-
approved.
/(ll) Scenes showing men and women living together without
marriage, and in adultery, will be disapproved. Discussion of
the question of the consummation of marriage, in pictures, will
be disapproved.
(12) The brutal treatment of children and of animals may
lead to the disapproval of the theme, or of incidents in film
stories.
(13) The use of profane and objectionable language in sub-
titles, will be disapproved.
(14) Objectionable titles, as well as subtitles of pictures, will
be disapproved.
(15) Views of incendiarism, burning, wrecking and the
/ destruction of property, which may put like action into the
/ minds of those of evil instincts, or may degrade the morals of
the young, will be disapproved.
< (16) Gross and offensive drunkenness, especially if women
have a part in the scenes, will be disapproved.
(17) Pictures which deal at length with gun play, and the use
of knives, and are set in the underworld, will be disapproved.
'When the whole theme is crime, unrelieved by other scenes, the
film will be disapproved. Prolonged fighting scenes will be
shortened, and brutal fights will be wholly disapproved.
(18) Vulgarities of a gross kind, such as often appear in
slapstick and other screen comedies, will be disapproved. Comedy
which burlesques morgues, funerals, hospitals, insane asylums,
the lying-in of women and houses of ill-fame, will be disapproved.
. (19) Sensual kissing and love-making scenes, men and women
/ in bed together and indelicate sexual situations, whether in
comedies or pictures of other classes will be disapproved. Bath-
ing scenes, which pass the limits of propriety, lewd and immodest
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 99
dancing, the needless exhibition of women in their night-dresses
or underclothing, will be disapproved.
(20) Views of women smoking will not be disapproved as such,
but when women are shown in suggestive positions or their
manner of smoking is suggestive or degrading, such scenes will
be disapproved.
(21) Pictures or parts of pictures which deal with venereal
disease, of any kind, will be disapproved.
(22) That the theme or story of a picture is adapted from a
publication, whether classical or not; or that portions of a picture
follow paintings or other illustrations, is not a sufficient reason
for the approval of a picture or portions of a picture.
(23) Themes or incidents in picture stories, which are designed
to inflame the mind to improper adventures, or to establish false
standards of conduct, coming under the foregoing classes, or of
other kinds, will be disapproved. Pictures will be judged as a
whole, with a view to their final total effect; those portraying
evil in any form which may be easily remembered or emulated,
will be disapproved.
(24) Banners, posters or other advertising matter, concerning
motion pictures, must follow the rules laid down for the pictures
themselves. That which may not be used upon the screen,
must not be used to announce and direct public attention to the
picture, in the lobby, on the street, or in any other form.
Pennsylvania State Board of Censors, Rules and Standards,
Harrisburg, Pa., 1918, p. 15 ff.
APPENDIX E
SAMPLES OF ELIMINATIONS BY THE NATIONAL BOARD OF
REVIEW OF MOTION PICTURES
Film 1 "In the action where Leslie- is honeymooning in
Italy, where she and - are performing their toilet in the morning
and - sees the woman in the bath, (1) cut this view of the
woman where the maid takes the robe off her and she steps do
in the pool, thus eliminating those scenes where she appears nu
100 MOTION PICTURES
In the scene of the orgy, to which the roue takes , (2) cut
the close view of the dancer on the table at the point before her
draperies are entirely unwound, so as to eliminate that part of
the shot where her body appears plainly through the transparency
of her skirt. (3) Eliminate the second view of the colored
attendant where he sees the silhouette of the dancer on the wall,
and makes gestures at it. (4) Cut to flashes the close-ups of the
dancer lying on the table where she makes a seductive play
for , eliminating that close-up of the dancer, photographed
full on, where she is lying on the table so that her. breasts appear.
(5) Cut the last view of the dancer, where she makes a play
for 's roue friend, at the point before he fondles and kisses
her.
Film 2 "Reel 1: (1) In the scene where enters the water,
cut to the point where she is already waist-deep, thus eliminating
that part where she enters and stands in the nude. Reel 6: In
the scene where dances in 's house : (1) Eliminate the first
view of the men at the table watching her dance (except a flash
to be taken from the end of this scene, and which is to be cut to
avoid a jump and to preserve continuity between the scene
where the sculptor rises from the table to go to the dancer's
assistance and the scene where he carries her out in other
words, just preceding the scene indicated by cut No. 5). (2)
Cut the scene (long shot) where the ribbons are entirely unwound
from the dancer at the point where they are unwinding just
above the knees. (3) Cut the close-up of the dancer's legs with
the ribbons falling about them so as to use only the middle part
which gives the idea of the ribbons falling but does not show at
length the girl's bare legs. (4) Eliminate entirely the scene of
the men jesting and holding out their glasses as the dancer
becomes uncovered. (5) In the scene where the sculptor lifts the
dancer in his arms to carry her out, cut the head of the scene so
that it begins with the dancer already lifted in his arms and
already in the state of being carried well toward the door. (6)
Shorten at the tail the scene where the sculptor carries the
dancer into the hall, so as to leave the action of her kicking in
his arms as short as possible in other words, to where the butler
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 101
in the background starts off to get a cloak. (Split the long
shot of the guests crowding about the doorway of the dining
rooms, so as to use part of it to cut in to avoid a jump and give
continuity.) (7) In the scene in the hall where the butler brings
the cloak, cut it up to the point where the butler is about to put
the cloak over her. (8) Eliminate entirely the scene (long shot)
in the hall where the dancer is seen standing, and comes toward
the sculptor. (9) Cut the following close-up to the point after
she kisses him where she stands looking at him in a troubled
way, thus eliminating the action where she kisses him in abandon.
(10) Where the butler brings her into the boudoir cut at the
point where he places her on the couch. (This scene, as cut,
is to be cut back into the scene where the sculptor is sitting in
the park outside.) (11) In the action where the butler is leaving
the boudoir, cut the close-up of the dancer on the couch where
she beckons him to come to her.
Film 3 "(1) In Reel 1: Cut the first scene of the girl in the
bathtub at the point where she gets into the tub with the maid
holding a cloak in front of her. (2) Eliminate the enlarged
view of the girl in the bathtub where she is soaping herself.
(3) Cut the view of the man looking through the key-hole to one
flash. (4) Eliminate the subtitle, 'Hot Dogs'. (5) Eliminate
the subtitle to the effect that a cake of soap does not have such
a hard life after all. (6) Later in the picture where is pre-
paring for her wedding, eliminate the subtitle, ' bares her
^trousseau and other things.' (7) Eliminate the scene imme-
diately following this subtitle against the black drop where
is posing in negligee, opening this sequence with the scene where
she has her maids around her. (8) Eliminate the close view of
in her negligee where the camera is tilted from her feet to her
head. (9) In the last reel eliminate the subtitle, ' brings
her little Boalt to his little Knutt in time to couple them.'
Film 4 "In part 2 of episode 11: Eliminate close-ups of
the torturing of the so that there will not be more than two
close-ups of girl's face, two of detective's face and one showing
forcing back of girl's thumb."
From mimeographed material issued by the National Board of Review.
102 MOTION PICTURES
APPENDIX F
MUTUAL FILM CORPORATION vs. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
OF OHIO, 236 U. S. SUPREME COURT RECORDS,
PP. 239-247
"Complainant directs its argument to three propositions:
(1) The statute in controversy imposes an unlawful burden
on interstate commerce ; (2) it violates the freedom of speech and
publication guaranteed by Section 11, art. 1, of the constitution
of the State of Ohio; and (3) it attempts to delegate legislative
power to censors and to other boards to determine whether the
statute offends in the particulars designated.
"It is necessary to consider only Sections 3, 4 and 5" (of the
Ohio Censorship Act).
"Section 3 makes it the duty of the board to examine and
cen. or motion picture films to be pub icly exhibited and displayed
in the State of Ohio. The films are required to be exhibited to
the board before they are delivered to the exhibitor for exhibition,
for which a fee is charged.
"Section 4. "Only such films as are in the judgment and
discretion of the board of censors of a moral, educational or
amusing and harmless character shall be passed and approved
by such board." The films are required to be stamped or
designated in a proper manner.
"Section 5. The board may work in conjunction with censor
boards of other States as a censor congress, and the action of
such congress in approving or rejecting films shall be considered
as the action of the state board, and all the films passed, ap-
proved, stamped and numbered by such congress, when the fees
therefor are paid shall be considered approved by the board.
"By Section 7 a penalty is imposed for such exhibition of films
without the approval of the board, and by Section 8 any person
dissatisfied with the order of the board is given the same rights
and remedies for hearing and reviewing, amendment or vacation
of the order" as is provided : n the case of persons dissatisfied
with the orders of the industrial commission.
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 103
"The censorship, therefore, is only of films intended for
exhibition in Ohio, and we can immediately put to one side the
contention that it imposes a burden on interstate commerce.
It is true that according to the allegations of the bill some of the
films of complainant are shipped from Detroit, Michigan, but
they are distributed to exhibitors, renters and lessors in Ohio,
for exhibition in Ohio, and this determines the application of the
statute. In other words, it is only films which are 'to be
publicly exhibited and displayed in the State of Ohio' which are
required to be examined and censored. It would be straining the
doctrine of original packages to say the films retain that form
and composition even when unrolling and exhibiting to audiences,
or being ready for renting for the purpose of exhibition within
the State, could not be disclosed to the state officers. If this
be so, whatever the power of the State to prevent the exhibition
of films not approved and for the purpose of this contention
we must assume the power is otherwise plenary films brought
from another state, and only because so brought, would be
exempt from the power, and films made in the State would be
subject to it. There must be some time when the films are
subject to the law of the State, and necessarily when they are
in the hands of the exchanges ready to be rented to exhibitors
or have passed to the latter, they are in consumption, and
mingled as much as from their nature they can be with other
property of the State.
"It is true that the statute requires them to be submitted to
the Board before they are delivered to the exhibitor, but we
have seen that the films are shipped to 'exchanges' and by them
rented to exhibitors, and the 'exchanges' are described as ' nothing
more or less than circulating libraries or clearing houses.' And
one film 'serves in many theatres from day to day until it is
worn out.'
"The next contention is that the statute violates the freedom
of speech and publication guaranteed by the Ohio constitution.
In its discussion counsel have gone into a very elaborate descrip-
tion of moving picture exhibitions and their many useful purposes
as graphic expressions of opinions and sentiments, as exponents
104 MOTION PICTURES
of policies, as teachers of science and history, as useful, interesting,
amusing, educational and moral. And a list of the 'campaigns',
as counsel call them, which may be carried on is given. We
may concede the praise. It is not questioned by the Ohio
statute and under its comprehensive description 'campaigns'
of an infinite variety may be conducted. Films of a 'moral,
educational or amusing and harmless character shall be passed
and approved' are the words of the statute. No exhibition,
therefore, or 'campaign' of complainant will be prevented if
its pictures have those qualities. Therefore, however mis-
sionary of opinion films are or may become, however educational
or entertaining, there is no impediment to their value or effect
in the Ohio statute. But they may be used for evil, and against
that possibility the statute was enacted. Their power of
amusement, and, it may be, education, the audiences they assem-
ble, not of women alone nor of men alone, but together, not of
adults only, but of children, make them the more insidious in
corruption by a pretense of worthy purpose or if they should
degenerate from worthy purpose. Indeed, we may go beyond
that possibility. They take their attraction from the general
interest, eager and wholesome, it may be in their subjects, but
a prurient interest may be excited and appealed to. Besides,
there are some things which should not have pictorial representa-
tion in public places and to all audiences. And not only the
State of Ohio but other States have considered it to be in the
interest of the public morals and welfare to supervise moving
picture exhibitions. We would have to shut our eyes to the
facts of the world to regard the precaution unreasonable or the
legislation to effect it a mere wanton interference with personal
liberty.
"We do not understand that a possibility of an evil employ-
ment of films is denied, but a freedom from the censorship of the
law and a precedent right of exhibition are asserted, subsequent
responsibility only, it is contended, being incurred for abuse.
In other words, as we have seen, the constitution of Ohio is
invoked and an exhibition of films is assimilated to the freedom
of speech, writing and publication assured by that instrument
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 105
and for the abuse of which only is there responsibility, and, it is
insisted, that as no law may be passed 'to restrain the liberty
of speech or of the press,' no law may be passed to subject
moving pictures to censorship before their exhibition.
" We need not pause to dilate upon the freedom of opinion and
its expression, and whether by speech, writing or printing. They
are too certain to need discussion of such conceded value as
to need no supporting praise. Nor can there be any doubt of
their breadth nor that their underlying safeguard is, to use the
words of another, ' that opinion is free and that conduct alone is
amenable to the law.'
"Are moving pictures within the principle, as it is contended
they are? They, indeed, may be mediums of thought, but so
are many things. So is the theatre, the circus, and all other
shows and spectacles, and their performances may be thus
brought by the like reasoning under the same immunity from
repression or supervision as the public press, made the same
agencies of civil liberty.
"Counsel have not shrunk from this extension of their conten-
tion and cite a case in this court where the title of drama was
accorded to pantomime ; l and such and other spectacles are
said by counsel to be publications of ideas, satisfying the defini-
tion of the dictionaries, that is, and we quote counsel, a means
of making or announcing publicly something that otherwise
might have remained private or unknown, and this being
peculiarly the purpose and effect of moving pictures they come
directly, it is contended, under the protection of the Ohio
constitution.
"The first impulse of the mind is to reject the contention.
We immediately feel that the argument is wrong or strained
which extends the guaranties of free opinion and speech to the
multitudinous shows which are advertised on the billboards of
our cities and towns and which regards them as emblems of
public safety, to use the words of Lord Camden, quoted by
counsel, and which seeks to bring motion pictures and other
spectacles into practical and legal similitude to a free press and
liberty of opinion.
1 Kalem vs. Harper Bros., 222 U. S. 55.
106 MOTION PICTURES
"The judicial sense supporting the common sense of the
country is against the contention. As pointed out by the
District Court, the police power is familiarly exercised in granting
or withholding licenses for theatrical performances as a means
of their regulation. The court cited the following cases: Marmet
v. State, 45 Ohio, 63, 72, 73; Baker v. Cincinnati, 11 Ohio St. 534;
Commonwealth v. McGann, 213 Massachusetts, 213, 215; People
v. Steele, 231 Illinois, 340, 344, 345.
"The exercise of the power upon moving picture exhibitions
has been sustained. Greenburg v. Western TurfAss'n, 148 Califor-
nia, 126; Laurelle v. Bush, 17 Cal. App. 409; State v. Loden, 117
Maryland, 373; Block v. Chicago, 239 Illinois, 251; Higgins v.
Lacroix, 119 Minnesota, 145. See also State v. Morris, 76 All.
Rep. 479; People v. Gaynor, 137 N. Y. S. 196, 199; McKenzie v.
McClellan, 116 N. Y. S. 645, 646.
"It seems not to have occurred to anybody in the cited cases
that freedom of opinion was repressed in the exertion of the
power which was illustrated. The rights of property were only
considered as involved. It cannot be put out of view that the
exhibition of moving pictures is a business pure and simple,
originated and conducted for profit, like other spectacles, not
to be regarded, nor intended to be regarded by the Ohio con-
stitution, we think, as part of the press of the country or as
organs of public opinion. They are mere representations of
events, of ideas and sentiments published and known, vivid,
useful and entertaining no doubt, but, as we have said, capable
of evil, having power for it, the greater because of their attrac-
tiveness and manner of exhibition. It was this capability and
power, and it may be in experience of them, that induced the
State of Ohio, in addition to prescribing penalties for immoral
exhibitions, as it does in its Criminal Code, to require censorship
before exhibition, as it does by the act under review. We
cannot regard this as beyond the power of government.
"It does not militate against the strength of these considera-
tions that motion pictures may be used to amuse and instruct
in other places than theatres in churches, for instance, and in
Sunday schools and public schools. Nor are we called upon to
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 107
say on this record whether such exceptions would be within the
provisions of the statute nor to anticipate that it will be so
declared by the state courts or so enforced by the state officers.
"The next contention of complainant is that the Ohio statute
is a delegation of legislative power and void for that if not for
the other reasons charged against it, which we have discussed.
While administration and legislation are quite distinct powers,
the line which separates exactly their exercise is not easy to define
in words. It is best recognized in illustrations. Undoubtedly
the legislature must declare the policy of the law and fix the legal
principles which are to control in given cases; but an adminis-
trative body may be invested with the power to ascertain the
facts and conditions to which the policy and principles apply.
If this could not be done there would be infinite confusion in the
laws, and in an effort to detail and to particularize, they would
miss sufficiency both in provision and execution.
"The objection to the statute is that it furnishes no standard
of what is educational, moral, amusing or harmless, and hence
leaves decision to arbitrary judgment, whim and caprice; or,
aside from those extremes, leaving it to the different views which
might be entertained of the effect of the pictures, permitting the
'personal equation' to enter, resulting 'in unjust discrimination
against some propagandist film,' while others might be approved
without question. But the statute by its provisions guards
against such variant judgments, and its terms, like other general
terms, get precision from the sense and experience of men and
become certain and useful guides in reasoning and conduct.
The exact specification of the instances of their application
would be as impossible as the attempt would be futile. Upon
such sense and experience, therefore, the law properly relies.
This has many analogies and direct examples in cases, and we
may cite Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183; Red '' Oil Manu-
facturing Co. v. North Carolina, 222 U. S. 380; Bridge Co. v.
United States, 216 U. S. 177 ; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470.
See also Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86. If this
were not so, the many administrative agencies created by the
state and National governments would be denuded of their
108 MOTION PICTURES
utility and government in some of its most important exercises
become impossible.
"To sustain the attack upon the statute as a delegation of
legislative power, complainant cites Harmon v. State, 66 Ohio St.
249. In that case a statute of the State committing to a certain
officer the duty of issuing a license to one desiring to act as an
engineer if 'found trustworthy and competent,' was declared
invalid because, as the court said, no standard was furnished by
the General Assembly as to qualification, and no specification
as to wherein the applicant should be trustworthy and compe-
tent, but all was 'left to the opinion, finding and caprice of the
examiner.' The case can be distinguished. Besides, later
cases have recognized the difficulty of exact separation of the
powers of government, and announced the principle that
legislative power is completely exercised where the law 'is
perfect, final, and decisive in all of its parts, and the discretion
given only relates to its execution.' Cases are cited in illus-
tration. And the principle finds further illustration in the
decisions of the courts of lesser authority but which exhibit the
judicial sense of the State as to the delegation of powers.
"Section 5 of the statute, which provides for a censor congress
of the censor board and the boards of other States, is referred
to in emphasis of complainant's objection that the statute
delegates legislative power. But, as complainant says, such con-
gress is 'at present non-existent and nebulous,' and we are,
therefore, not called upon to anticipate its action or pass upon
the validity of Section 5.
"We may close this topic with a quotation of the very apt
comment of the District Court upon the statute. After re-
marking that the language of the statute 'might have been
extended by descriptive and illustrative words,' but doubting
that it would have been the more intelligible and that probably
by being more restrictive might be more easily thwarted, the
court said : ' In view of the range of subjects which complainants
claim to have already compassed, not to speak of the natural
development that will ensue, it would be next to impossible to
A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 109
devise language that would be at once comprehensive and
automatic. '
"In conclusion we may observe that the Ohio statute gives a
review by the courts of the State of the decision of the board of
censors. "
'''
,
'
i KJUTMEHNHEGIONAl. UBHABY FAOUTY
University of California
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388
Return this material to the library
from which it was borrowed.
t
Unive
So
