UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 SCHOOL OF LAW 
 LIBRARY
 
 Motion Pictures. 
 
 Report 
 
 of the 
 
 Special Committee 
 of 
 
 THE NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF MAYORS 
 
 Appointed to make an Investigation 
 
 into the Matter of the Regulation 
 
 of Motion Pictures. 
 
 
 Report Submitted to, and adopted 
 
 by 
 
 The New York State Conference of Mayors 
 
 at the Semi-annual Meeting held in 
 
 Albany, N. Y., February 24, 1920.
 
 \ 
 
 - 
 
 ■3:
 
 THE COMMITTEE 
 
 » 
 
 Hon. Palmer Canfield, Jr., Chairman; Mayor of Kingston and Rep- 
 resentative of Cities of the Third Class. 
 
 Hon. Walter W. Nicholson, Commissioner of Public Safety of Syra- 
 cuse, and Representative of Cities of the Second Class. 
 
 Hon. R. Andrew Hamilton, Commissioner of Public Safety of Roches- 
 ter, and Representative of Cities of the First Class. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Charles O. Judkins, pastor of the Grace Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, of Glens Falls, N. Y., and Representative of the 
 Churches. 
 
 Mrs. Howard Gans, of New York, Representative of the Federation for 
 Child Study. 
 
 Mr. Rex Beach, of Ardsley-on-the-Hudson, Representative of the 
 Authors League. 
 
 Mrs. N. B. Spauldino, of Schenectady, Representative of the House- 
 wives' League. 
 
 Mr. James P. Holland, of New York, President of the New York State 
 Federation of Labor, Representative of Labor. 
 
 Miss Mary Gray Peck, of Geneva, Representative of the Free Lance 
 Women Writers. 
 
 Dr. Everett D. Martin, of New York, Representative of the National 
 Board of Review of Motion Pictures. 
 
 Mr. Albert E. Smith, President of the Vitagraph Company of America. 
 Representative of the Motion Picture Producers. 
 
 Mr. Gabriel L. Hess, of the Goldwyn Distributing Corporation, Rep- 
 resentative of the Motion Picture Distributors. 
 
 Mr. Walter Hayes, of Buffalo, Vice-President of the Strand Theatre 
 Interests, Representative of the Motion Picture Exhibitors. 
 
 Secretary — Mr. William P. Capes, Secretary of Neiu York State Conference of 
 Mayors and Director of New York State Bureau of Municipal Information, 25 
 ]V ashington Avenue, Albany, N. Y.
 
 REPORT OF COMMITTEE 
 
 To the New York State Conference of Mayors: 
 
 The committee you appointed last year to consider the regulation of 
 motion pictures has thoroughly investigated the subject. 
 
 On January 15th the committee met at the Waldorf-Astoria in New 
 York City, and its work was outlined by Hon. Walter W. Stone of Syra- 
 cuse, the president of the Conference. That afternoon various studios were 
 investigated and gone over thoroughly in order that the producing depart- 
 ments of the work might be understood. 
 
 On January 16th the art of exhibiting the pictures was investigated, 
 and a reviewing committee of the National Board of Review, as it passed 
 upon the pictures, was thoroughly observed in action, that its working be 
 understood. In the afternoon the full committee met at the Waldorf- 
 Astoria for general discussion and the perfection of organization, etc. At 
 this meeting the following sub-committees were appointed to bring reports 
 upon the following: 
 
 Local Regulation — Dr. E. D. Martin, chairman; Mrs. Howard Gans 
 and Walter Hayes. 
 
 Existing Laws — Gabriel L. Hess, chairman; Miss Mary Gray Peck 
 and Albert E. Smith. 
 
 National Board of Review — Walter W. Nicholson, chairman; Mrs. 
 N. B. Spaulding and Rev. Dr. Charles O. Judkins. 
 
 State Censorship — Rex Beach, chairman; James P. Holland and R. 
 Andrew Hamilton. 
 
 On Monday, February 2nd, the sub-committees met in Albany and 
 submitted in their reports the results of their investigations. These re- 
 ports were read and debated at length, and a special committee consisting 
 of Mayor Palmer Canfield, Jr., of Kingston, N. Y., Commissioner Walter 
 W. Nicholson, and Rev. C. O. Judkins was appointed to draw up the gen- 
 eral report for submission to the entire committee preparatory to making 
 the final report to the Mayors' Conference..
 
 
 GENERAL STATEMENT 
 
 In considering the regulation of motion pictures, it is necessary to get 
 a clear conception of what motion pictures are, for they can be rightly 
 regulated only when they are rightly conceived. Motion pictures are not 
 primarily a business, although the production and exhibition of motion 
 pictures has become a great business. To attempt to regulate motion pic- 
 tures merely as a business would go very wide of the mark of the true 
 regulation of motion pictures. 
 
 Motion pictures are not primarily an educational movement. They 
 may be educational and doubtless will be used largely as a means of educa- 
 tion, but to attempt to regulate them on the basis of their educational 
 value would be a false move. 
 
 Nor are motion pictures the same as books, papers or magazines, and n^3 
 while very often arguments are based on similes between the motion pic- 
 tures and the book, the paper or the magazine, the attempt to regulate the 
 motion picture as you would a book, a paper or a magazine, is enept. 
 
 Motion pictures are primarily an art and the logical regulation of 
 motion pictures is such regulation as would be applied to art, and not such 
 as would be applied to journalism, or literature, or business. The com- 
 mittee feels that this fundamental principle should be understood for on its 
 consideration is based the profound conviction that the motion picture 
 should never be subjected to legalized censorship, such as state censorship; 
 but simply T>ecause~"iT is primarily an art, it should be regulated by the 
 review of a body of people who so love and appreciate art as to be anxious 
 for its perfection to the point of voluntary service in review to protect and 
 elevate the art to the highest possible state of efficiency in order that the 
 effect upon the public may be such as a great art should produce. 
 
 Your committee is convinced that the National Board of Review is 
 such a body of people; and that while it is possible, y£t in all probability 
 no politically appointed board of state censors would be such a body of 
 people. Therefore the committee believes that it would be a sheer calamity 
 to supplant the National Board of Review and the results of its efforts with 
 a state board of censors, and your committee begs that such local legislation 
 as shall assist the National Board of Review to carry its work to perfec- 
 tion be urged upon the cities by the State Mayor's Conference, in order 
 that the people realizing the peculiar artistic efficiency of the National 
 Board of Review may be content with their work and delivered from any 
 reasons for desiring the setting up of a state board of censorship. These 
 conclusions are based on the following summaries of the reports of special 
 committees.
 
 REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION 
 OF SUB-COMMITTEES 
 
 EXISTING LAWS 
 New York has a regulatory provision, known as Section 1140-A of 
 the Penal Law. It was added to our statutes by Chapter 279 of the 
 Laws of 1909, and became effective September 1, 1909. It reads ?s fol- 
 lows : 
 
 "Any person who as owner, manager, director, or ngent or 
 in any other capacity prepared, advertises, gives, presents, or par 
 ticipates in any obscene, indecent, immoral or impure drama, play, 
 exhibition, show or entertainment, which would tend to the coi 
 ruption of the morals of youth or others, and every person aidin, 
 or abbetting such act, and every owner, or lessee or manager of 
 any garden, building, room, place or structure, who leases or l^ts 
 the same or permits the same to be used for the purposes of any 
 such drama, play, exhibition or show or entertainment, knowingly, 
 or who assents to the use of the same for any such purpose shall be 
 guilty of a misdemeanor." 
 
 We wish to call to the attention of the committee that this law was 
 in force and effect when the late Mayor William J. Gaynor in 191? wrote 
 his veto message to an ordinance which attempted to set up a censorship 
 of moving pictures in New York City. After declaring that censorships 
 which interfered with freedom of speech, of the press and of opinion, had 
 been abolished in all free countries throughout the world, he asserted that 
 our present laws were ample to prevent the publication of any libelous, 
 obscene, immoral or impure picture or reading matter. "If anyone does 
 this he commits a criminal offense and may be punished therefor," he said. 
 
 We have the evidence of this great jurist and great lover of freedom 
 that this law is sufficient to prevent the exhibition of indecent and obscene 
 pictures. Despite this evidence there are those who say the law cannot 
 be enforced. It should be remembered that no penal law is self-enforcing, 
 but this one can be and has been. When the "White Slave" picture first 
 appeared, Justice Davis was asked to grant an injunction, resrraining the 
 production of one of these pictures. He viewed the picture and dem'id the 
 application for an injunction. The exhibitor was tried, convicted and sen- 
 tenced under this law. 
 
 It will be noted that a person violating this law is guilty of a mis- 
 demeanor. Any person can make a complaint to a magistrate, and the 
 person charged with the offense can be brought into court on a summons or 
 a warrant. It is not necessary to have the case presented to a Grand Jury,
 
 although that can be done, but can be disposed of by the magistrate. This 
 committee agrees with the late Justice Gaynor that the law is sufficient to 
 punish any person presenting an indecent, obscene, or immoral picture 
 which would tend to the corruption of the morals of youth. 
 
 Your sub-committee has made an examination of the laws of other 
 states for the purpose of determining if the one in New York could be 
 improved by amendment. It finds that in Massachusetts, Illinois and other 
 states where laws have been passed they are in the language of the New 
 York statute, which covers dramatic and all other forms of entertainments 
 as well as moving picture. The only state in which motion pictures are 
 specifically mentioned is Vermont. Section 7023 of the General Laws of 
 that state read : 
 
 "A person who exhibits to the public moving pictures which 
 are obsence or immoral, or presents an obscene or immoral show, 
 vaudeville or entertainment, shall be imprisoned not more than 
 three months or fined not more than two hundred dollars or 
 both." 
 
 We believe the New York law is stronger than that of Vermont. A 
 conviction as a misdemeanor under the New York law would carry with 
 it an imprisonment of not more than one year, or a fine of not more than 
 five hundred dollars, or both. 
 
 For the reasons stated, this sub-committee does not recommend any 
 change in the present law, but reports that in its opinion it is sufficient to 
 prosecute any person presenting an indecent, obscene or immoral picture. 
 
 LOCAL REGULATIONS 
 
 Naturally following the report of existing laws is the digest of the 
 findings of the sub-committee appointed to investigate and report on 
 Local Regulations. 
 
 After careful investigation the findings are as follows: 
 
 There should be passed in every community two ordinances — one an 
 
 ordinance relative to motion pictures advertising and the other an ordinance 
 
 relative to the regulation of motion picture films. To facilitate the work 
 
 of passing these ordinances, two suggested ordinances are hereby sub- 
 
 Suggested Ordinance No. 1 
 
 The committee recognizes the power now vested in each local com- 
 munity to regulate amusements. It would strengthen this power by 
 recommending that each community pass an ordinance governing display 
 advertising in front of places of amusement. 
 
 Section 1. That it shall be the duty of the proprietor, operator or 
 manager of every motion picture theatre or other place of amusement in
 
 (city, town or village) open to the public in which motion 
 
 pictures are exhibited, whenever advertising matter on a billboard placed 
 in front of the building or other structure in which motion pictures are 
 exhibited or other public places, the title to the pictures or other descrip- 
 tion shall be full enough to describe in general terms the nature and 
 character of the picture or pictures to be shown. No such proprietor, 
 operator or manager shall place, maintain or allow to be placed or main- 
 tained in front or in connection with any such theatre or other place of 
 public amusement any sign, picture or other announcement which in any 
 manner misstates or misrepresents the pictures or other amusements which 
 are being shown in said place, or which announces a picture or other form 
 of amusement or entertainments which is not at the time such announce- 
 ment is displayed being shown and exhibited in said theatre or other place 
 of amusement. This shall not apply to posters which advertise advance 
 exhibitions. 
 
 Section 2. No proprietor, operator or manager of a motion picture 
 
 theatre or other public place in (city, town or village) 
 
 shall display in front of, or in connection with such place of amusement 
 a sign, picture, billboard or poster or other advertisement which repre- 
 sents any matter of immoral or indecent nature, or which depicts offensive 
 acts or violence or of human torture or is calculated to incite riot or acts con- 
 trary to the public peace; and be it furthermore enacted, that no such pic- 
 ture, sign, billboard or poster shall exhibit for public display pictures of the 
 female form in the nude or clad in one-piece bathing suits, tights or other 
 lascivious and suggestive costumes. 
 
 Section 3. Any person being such proprietor, agent or manager of 
 
 any theatre or other place of amusement in (city, town or 
 
 village) open to the public, failing to comply with the provisions of this 
 ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 
 
 Ordinance No. 2 
 AN ORDINANCE OF (City, Town or Village) 
 
 RELATING TO MOTION PICTURES AND PROVID- 
 ING FOR A SYSTEM OF REGULATION THEREOF 
 
 Be it ordained by the (city, town or village) as 
 
 follows : 
 
 Section 1. Definitions. — Unless it appears from the context that a 
 different meaning is intended, the following words as used shall have the 
 following meanings attached to them by this section: 
 
 The word "picture" shall mean and include any picture or series of 
 pictures of the classes and kinds commonly shown by means of mutoscope,
 
 cinematographs or automatic or moving picture devices. 
 
 The words "to show" shall mean to show, display, produce or ex- 
 hibit. 
 
 The word "person" shall mean any person, firm or corporation, 
 
 whether acting as principal or agent. 
 
 Section 2. It shall be the duty of the licensing official, mayor, police 
 authority, common council or commissioner of public safety to discover and 
 prevent violations of this ordinance. 
 
 Section 3. At a reasonable time before any picture not approved by 
 the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures and which does not 
 bear the official copyright insignia of the National Board is publicly ex- 
 hibited in (city, town or village) the person whose intent 
 
 it is to rent or exhibit the same shall file with the licensing official, mayor, 
 police authority, common council or commissioner of public safety, a 
 written notice of their intention so to do. Such notice shall state: 
 
 (a) The name of the picture. 
 
 (b) The name of the manufacturer thereof. 
 
 (c) The general character of the picture. 
 
 (d) Time and place at which it is intended first to display the picture. 
 
 (e) The name and address of persons filing the notice to which re- 
 quests, demands and notices provided for in this ordinance may 
 be served. 
 
 The statement shall be signed by the person in immediate control of 
 the place from which the picture is to be leased, rented, sold or exhibited. 
 
 Section 4. The licensing official, mayor, police authority, common 
 council or commissioner of public safety is hereby empowered and author- 
 ized to demand that any picture which has not been passed by the National 
 
 Board of Review and which is proposed to be shown in 
 
 (city, town or village) be shown to the licensing official, mayor, police 
 authority, common council or commissioner of public safety before the 
 public exhibition thereof. Such demand shall be made in writing and shall 
 be addressed to the person signing the notice herein required at the ad- 
 dress given in such notice and may be served upon him personally or by 
 leaving such a demand in a conspicuous place at such add. °ss. The person 
 acting as principal or agent for the picture shall provide free of charge the 
 place and proper facilities by which the picture is to be shown to the 
 licensing official, mayor, etc., and shall so show it. 
 
 Section 5. And be it further enacted that the licensing official, mayor, 
 
 police authority, common council or commissioner of public safety in 
 
 (city, town or village) is hereby given authority to pro-
 
 hibit the exhibition of such advertising as is designated in Ordinance No. 1, 
 and said official is hereby given authority to enforce Ordinance No. 1. 
 
 Section 6. The licensing official, mayor, etc., is hereby empowered 
 and authorized and it shall be his duty to prohibit, or to prohibit in part 
 any picture which he finds to be obscene, indecent, improper, licentious or 
 immoral, or any picture that would have a harmful influence on the public. 
 Upon making such finding, the official shall immediately notify the person 
 filing the notice of his intention to show such picture of the finding and 
 that the showing of the picture, or such part thereof as may be designated 
 by such official is prohibited. 
 
 Pictures for Children 
 
 It is also recommended that the present state law governing the at- 
 tendance of children under sixteen unaccompanied by parent or guardian 
 be amend-d to permit each locality, through the enactment of local 
 ordinance, to sanction special young people's performances of selected pic- 
 tures where such performances are arranged under proper local auspices in 
 connection with the Better Film Movement. 
 
 Your committee bases the above recommendation on its conviction 
 that the special performances for children and young people are the only 
 permanent solution of a community motion picture problem. In view of 
 the fact that according to reliable statistics a small percentage of audiences 
 attending motion picture theatres consist of young people under sixteen, 
 any form of regulation based upon such a minor percentage of the total 
 audience invades the rights of the majority. 
 
 Your committee has carried on an investigation in various directions, 
 the result of which leads them to the definite conviction that the attend- 
 ance of young people in the downtown theatres in the various towns and 
 cities is practically negligible, while the attendance of children in the local 
 neighborhood theatres is of more consequence, but would doubtless not 
 exceed ten per cent of the audience, except in a case where pictures are being 
 shown which appeal especially to young people under sixteen. Any form 
 of regulation, therefore, based upon such a minor percentage of the total 
 audience invades the rights of the majority. On the other hand, the 
 special performances for young people would unquestionably draw off 
 from the regular performances where pictures of an ordinary character are 
 shown, the young people customarily attending such exhibitions. It would 
 furnish them with a type of entertainment of an entirely suitable nature 
 and thus the minority of the ordinary audience would be taken care of 
 without interfering with the programs which are designed primarily for 
 adults, the majority.
 
 Your committee believes that an ordinance subjecting pictures such 
 as are described above to the possible interference of the local licensing 
 agency, adds in no way to the present powers of the local license agency, 
 but directs its actions toward the pictures in no other way reviewed. Your 
 committee believes also that such an emphasis will cause the producers 
 to make a special effort to bring the one per cent of unreviewed pictures 
 under the scrutiny of the National Board of Review. Since then to draw 
 the attention of the local licensing agency to the need of watching the one 
 per cent of unreviewed pictures in no way enhances the already estab- 
 lished power of the licensing agency, and since it would tend to give the 
 National Board of Review complete oversight over the output of motion 
 picture producers, the ordinance seems to your committee to be in harmony 
 with its basal principle of fostering the National Board of Review and 
 does nothing to increase the already established power of local licensing 
 agencies. It should be remembered that the local licensing agency is in 
 an indirect sense a regulator, as it has the power to revoke the license of 
 offending exhibitors. 
 
 N A Tl NA L BOARD OF RE VIE W 
 History. The National Board of Review of Motion Pictures was 
 established by the Peoples Institute in New York City in 1909. It is still 
 affiliated with the Peoples Institute. The Board reviewed sixty-five per 
 cent of the films circulated in the United States in 1909 and in 1916 its 
 activities had extended to cover ninety-nine per cent of the films produced 
 and circulated here. Its membership, always voluntary, consisted of seven 
 persons in 1909 and had increased to over two hundred persons in 1917. 
 It is self-governing and through its general committee establishes standards 
 and rules of procedure; elects its own officers and members and selects its 
 executive staff. No votes are permitted on any picture by any one even 
 remotely connected with the motion picture industry. 
 
 Organization. Its General Committee, which is the governing body, 
 is drawn from persons of training who are identified with various welfare 
 and civic movements. The General Committee also elects an Executive 
 Committee, charged with the details of administration, and a Review Com- 
 mittee which deals directly with the motion picture output. 
 
 Finance. The cost of the work of the National Board is met by con- 
 tributions made through the Peoples Institute, by persons interested in the 
 educational work of the Board; by persons who have become sustaining 
 members; and by charges made against the producers covering the work 
 of review, upon an agreed rate per reel of all films reviewed. Contrary to 
 general understanding the producers have no influence over the Board, for
 
 the reason that those who by this plan review the pictures are not re- 
 munerated by the industry. The fees collected are used solely for the sup- 
 port of the office force, no member of which is on the Board. 
 
 Methods. Pictures are shown in advance of publicity to the Review 
 Committee. This committee is divided for convenience into several di- 
 visions, each such division meeting, one day each week. Pictures after re- 
 view are passed with or without elimination. Any picture can be appealed 
 by a member of the Review committee, by the Secretary of by the Producer, 
 to the General Committee, which thereupon makes final review and gives 
 final decisions. After final action is taken the owner is notified and agrees 
 to make the changes suggested. A bulletin of information concerning 
 action on all pictures is issued each week to national correspondents, includ- 
 ing municipal officials. 
 
 Standards 
 
 From a list of nearly forty standards which guide the Review and 
 General Committees, and therefore the Board itself, in its judgment of the 
 quality and suitableness of motion pictures for exhibition in the United 
 States, we draw attention to the following: 
 
 "The Board will not pass pictures which would tend to influence 
 public opinion on questions of fact in any matter that is before the courts 
 for adjudication." 
 
 "No comedy which in effect holds up to ridicule any religious sect, 
 religion generally or the popular characteristics of any race of people should 
 be shown." 
 
 "Infidelity to marriage ties must not be treated improperly or sugges- 
 tively as a comedy theme. All loose suggestive comedy 'business' between 
 the sexes should be removed. Suggestive dress or actions which provoke 
 sensuality of thought are also objectionable." 
 
 "The National Board will not permit the rough handling of women 
 and children, the aged and infirm, or cruelty to animals." 
 
 "The National Board holds that respect be shown for the law in ac- 
 tion and thought." 
 
 "Crimes of violence, Theft, Fraud, Forgery, Burglary and Robbery. 
 No suggestively instructive or ingenious methods may be exploited." 
 
 "Those scenes which are ardent beyond the strict requirements of the 
 dramatic situation have been curtailed by the National Board." 
 
 "The National Board recognizes the influence of the display of under- 
 garments and the partial display of the person and judges critically all such 
 incidents. The producers sometimes assume that true art calls for the par- 
 ticular costume chosen, but if the National Board thinks that the art is 
 
 10
 
 put in to carry the immorality over, or that the immorality is more effec- 
 tive than the art, it considers that it is its duty to condemn the picture." 
 
 "The National Board as a reflector of public opinion takes the position 
 that it should not and will not pass any pictures containing incidentally or 
 extensively the female nude." 
 
 A national agency working every day for the betterment of motion pic- 
 ture exhibitions and acting under such principles as those ennunciated 
 above is bound to continuously raise the standards of performance. It 
 must be admitted by any person who has given much thought to the sub- 
 ject, that a tremendous advance in good taste has been made during the 
 last three or four years. It seems likely to your committee that the activity 
 of the National Board of Review has been a large factor in this process. 
 
 Your committee believes that a wider use of the facilities and service 
 of the National Board, and a more general co-operation on the part of 
 municipal officials with the National Board and with local exhibitors, will 
 in fact meet all the necessities of the so-called moving picture problem, and 
 will be more effective and far-reaching in ultimate results than any other 
 official method. A policy of this sort, enforced when necessary through 
 exercise of the police and license power will be adequate, we believe, to 
 meet any situation that may arise. 
 
 We advise that producers be required to resume the practice of dis- 
 playing the shield of the National Board on all films passed by the Board. 
 
 As a further means of increasing the influence of the National Board 
 we would advise an extension of the Advisory Committee membership, and 
 the adoption of some plan which may secure greater activity on the part of 
 the members of the Advisory Committee. 
 
 We advise that the National Board of Review by some practical 
 means establish official connections with municipal administrations through- 
 put the state; and establish also representative advisory boards or com- 
 mittees in all the states and larger centers of population. 
 
 STATE CENSORSHIP 
 
 The sub-committee to investigate state censorship made a comprehen- 
 sive and very able report. The report is too long to be included in this 
 report, but on account of its value, it is added to this report in the form 
 of an appendix. The committee gave substantial reasons for their conclu- 
 sions, as follows: 
 
 Legalized censorship of the film is a dangerous departure in a free 
 country. It is no less dangerous than a censorship of the press or the stage 
 for it places a ban upon ideas. The indecent, improper and immoral film 
 can be eradicated by the same methods as are used against indecent, im- 
 
 11
 
 proper and immoral books or plays. It may make the passing of films a 
 matter of political influence and result in consequent abuses of power. It 
 does not reflect public opinion but merely the personal views of the censors 
 themselves. The experiment which has been tried in other states does not 
 warrant New York making such a radical departure from the principles 
 upon which our Government is founded. Nor does there appear to be the 
 necessity for that departure. Great as has been the improvement of the 
 film in recent years, it would be greater and more rapid were the menace 
 of censorship eliminated and the art allowed to develop along its natural 
 lines, governed by common sense and the good taste of the American 
 
 people. 
 
 GENERAL SUMMARY 
 
 Your committee finds that owing to the nature of the motion picture 
 art, state censorship in any form is undesirable, and that the only promising 
 method of regulating the production and exhibition of motion pictures so 
 that the public shall receive the greatest possible good from this art, is 
 now in operation in the form of the National Board of Review. 
 
 Your committee believes that because art has always been attended by 
 generous self-sacrificing patrons and critics, the National Board of Review 
 will never cease to function and function wisely in its attempt to advance 
 the interests of all concerned. 
 
 Hie committee believes that the two suggestions concerning ordinances 
 will give all the added power to the Board of Review desirable at this time, 
 and urges that the Mayors of the State recommend such local legislation 
 as will carry these ideas into effect. The only diffcult situation is concern- 
 ing the proper handling of the one per cent of the films which does not 
 come under the supervision of the National Board of Review, and the 
 mayors should consider which would be the greater evil: to leave this 
 one per cent utterly unreviewed and so liable to do continual harm, or to 
 throw the supervision of this one per cent over to the licensing agencies of 
 the communities of the state. The final action of a licensing agent is, of 
 course, in the form of punishment for a misdemeanor, but the fact that the 
 licensing agencies may be given power to review this one per cent of films 
 with the understanding that if undesirable, the licensing agencies may 
 render proper punishment, is in itself an indirect type of regulation, and 
 the mayors must decide whether this indirect type is a greater danger than 
 to leave the one per cent of questionable output utterly unreviewed. 
 
 Your committee believes the lesson of these two evils is to give the 
 licensing agencies the right to act as in the proposed ordinances. It will 
 he seen that the bulk of the work reported in these pages is a review of 
 
 12
 
 matters of fact ; that the only debatable questions are the superiority of the 
 National Board of Review over state censorship and the method of bring- 
 ing under proper surveillance the one per cent of unreviewed films, and 
 we believe wise recommendations have been made concerning both these 
 questions. 
 
 13
 
 REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 
 ON STATE CENSORSHIP 
 
 To the Special Committee Appointed by the State Conference of 
 Mayors on the Regulation of Motion Pictures: 
 
 Your sub-committee, appointed to inquire into and report upon state 
 censorship of motion picture films desires to submit the following report : 
 
 It is unalterably opposed to any form of state censorship of films and 
 for the following reasons: 
 
 The Basic Principle of Censorship is Un-American 
 
 Free thought and its free expression in speech or through the medium 
 of the press, the pulpit, the forum, the stage and the screen is a right 
 guaranteed to every American citizen by the Federal Constitution. Our 
 fathers fled the Old World to gain freedom for the expression of their 
 religious and political beliefs. Free speech, a free press and a free stage 
 have become and must ever remain an inviolable part of the American ideal. 
 
 So firmly is that principle grounded in our national life that not only 
 the Federal Constitution, but also every State Constitution guarantees it, 
 and every citizen is granted the right of free speech in print, being held 
 responsible only for the abuse of that right. The screen has attained a 
 dignity akin to that of the stage and to the printed page: it should be en- 
 titled to the same privileges and liable to the same penalties. If it sins it 
 should be punished in the same way as the stage or the press is punished 
 and to neither a greater nor a lesser extent. 
 
 Film censorship inflicts punishment before the sin is committed and it 
 is a blow at civil liberty quite as deadly as censorship of the press, for the film 
 is not only a medium of entertainment but also a news and educational me- 
 dium, quite as universal as the magazine or the newspaper. Should America 
 surrender her free theatre, which means a free screen, she might as well give 
 up her free press, her free speech and her freedom of assemblage. The 
 one might well lead to the other. Legislation tending towards any such re- 
 striction is thoroughly pernicious and in the end will destroy personal re- 
 sponsibility, distort the public mind and hamper its development and stunt 
 the vital growth of education. 
 
 Censorship of speech, of press, pulpit or stage has ever been the dis- 
 tinguishing mark of despotism. Freedom in the expression of thought is 
 the cornerstone of democracy.
 
 Censorship is a Backward Step in the Progress of Civilization 
 The greatness of any country is measured by the greatness of its art 
 and its literature. To quote the Earl of Lytton, "The social civilization 
 of a people is always and infallibly indicated by the intellectual character 
 of its popular amusements." 
 
 To restrict the free development and expression of the newest of arts 
 through censorship is a step backward towards the dark ages. Censorship 
 burned the Bible; censorship kept from the French people for a whole 
 generation all knowledge of Newton's discovery of terrestial magnetism. 
 Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" was pronounced by a professor of the 
 University of London to be "one of the most actively evil pictures ever 
 painted." When Guttenberg invented the printing press prototypes of the 
 present proponents of censorship succeeded in suppressing the printed word 
 for many years. The motion pictures is a process of recording thought 
 without the use of printer's ink and is perhaps as great an advance over 
 printing as Guttenberg's invention was over the quill pen. A censorship 
 of the one is no less dangerous than a censorship of the other. 
 
 Censorship is Fundamentally Wrong 
 It has been aptly said that motion picture censorship is the latest device 
 for making us moral by act of legislature and is a futile effort to correct 
 Nature which gave us five senses and but one conscience. Certainly it is 
 an assumption by political authority, not of the regulation of conduct, but 
 of the regulation of thought. 
 
 Is it right or politic to select any three, any ten or any hundred 
 men and women, however pure, however wise, however blessed with 
 genius and endow them with the power to set the moral standards of 
 12,000,000 people? If so, would that standard be the same today as to- 
 morrow ? Would it be the same in one locality as another ? It would not, 
 should not be the same, for that which may be injurious to the public good 
 in one locality or at one time may be harmless in another place or at another 
 day. Will the Legislature of the State of New York in its wisdom define 
 what is objectionable, what is contrary to the public weal, in a film? We 
 know that it will not. Why then should that definition be left to others? 
 Why should another body of citizens, of no greater intelligence or aesthetic 
 perception, be given the power to enforce its opinion upon the rest of the 
 people ? 
 
 We possess the right to select our religious, our political beliefs, our 
 newspapers, books, operas and plays, but a film censorship law would take 
 from us the right to select our motion pictures and permit us to see only 
 those which appealed to the censors. 
 
 15
 
 :w impulses equal the passion to impose our own views upon our 
 neighbors, to regulate their morals in conformity with our own. Censor- 
 ship results from the determination of the few to impose their views upon 
 the many. While it is true that liberty of any sort, even freedom of 
 speech, is liable to abuse, there are safeguards against this, and he who is 
 guilty of such abuse must be held responsible. It is quite another matter 
 to try to prevent the possibility of such abuse beforehand by surrendering 
 both freedom and responsibility to a legalized board, however constituted. 
 
 Censorship Will Ever Remain Unsatisfactory 
 
 Censorship is bound to be unsatisfactory until that time when all 
 people observe life through the same glasses. One man is shocked at what 
 another considers beautiful. What was indecent yesterday may be decent 
 today, or vice versa. Immorality, indecency are general terms; they can- 
 not be defined with geometrical certainty. They vary with environment. 
 They may be matters of latitude and longitude. Pictures of bathing girls 
 excite no comment at seaside resorts ; they may not be viewed with the same 
 indifference in the prairie states. The Eskimo woman warms the half 
 frozen feet of her husband upon her naked body in a manner to shock her 
 white sister, and what is wifely devotion in Etah is gross indecency in 
 Utah. 
 
 State Censorship is bound to be unsatisfactory also for the reason that 
 there can be no exact limitations to its scope. There can be no point beyond 
 which it may not be carried nor can there be a uniformity of standards 
 among the states permitting it. 
 
 Given a censorship of films in the forty-five states of the union and 
 we would have the amazing and impossible situation of forty-five different 
 kinds of morality. That which is decent and moral in New York City 
 might be indecent and immoral in Hoboken; that which is contrary to the 
 public good in Kansas City, Missouri, might well be in complete accord 
 with the civil welfare of Kansas City, Kansas, depending wholly upon the 
 rulings of local boards. Could any art, any industry live under such con- 
 dition. Inhibitions, restrictions, conflicts of such a nature would have 
 murdered literature or painting, or the drama generations ago. Can an 
 art as new as the motion picture live under them? 
 
 A proposal of State Censorship implies that the moot question of 
 what is decent and what is indecent shall be left not to public opinion, but 
 to the judgment of a commission of three or five or some other number of 
 political appointees. Will there be anything sacrasant about such a board 
 of censors? No. They can be no more than' a body of non-expert guard- 
 ians of public morals ; a sore and a needless irritation to the public. 
 
 16
 
 Censorship is More Than Apt to be Swayed by Politics 
 The motion picture reaches more people and influences more pro- 
 foundly, their thoughts and ideals, than perhaps any other agency. It is a 
 potent educational force and one of the most efficient mediums for the ex- 
 pression of thought. To pass over its control to a politically appointed 
 board is a step fraught with danger. Such boards are bound to respond to 
 that force which gave them being. 
 
 It is claimed that political influence, engendered by a considerable 
 negro vote in Southern Ohio, prevented the showing of "The Birth of a 
 Nation" in that state. In Pennsylvania, where the negro vote is not a 
 factor on election day, the censors passed the picture. In Ohio and Penn- 
 sylvania the censorship boards eleminated from the news films all pictures 
 of the recent coal strike. Labor leaders feel that this was a blow at them 
 and that it was struck by the mine owners who were able to exert the 
 political influence necessary to bring about the elimination of the pictures. 
 Charles E. Hughes, in 1916, denounced the censorship of films as un- 
 American and intolerable. His words were printed in the newspapers of 
 Kansas; nevertheless, the censors of that state forbade the quotation to be 
 shown on the screen, thus proving that mere vanity may sway the judg- 
 ment of super-moralists. The police censors of Chicago eliminated the 
 picture of a policeman borrowing peanuts from a stand, alleging as reason 
 that it tended to lessen public respect for the guardians of the law. At the 
 same time, as a later exposure revealed, wholesale grafting by the police 
 was under way. 
 
 Censorship Would Retard the Development of the Motion Picture 
 The motion picture is a new art and it should enjoy the same freedom 
 of expression as the other arts. What would our liteurature, our sculp- 
 ture, our painting be today if every book, before publication, had been 
 submitted to a censor with absolute powers of approval, rejection and elim- 
 ination? Or if only such statues and canvases were permitted to live in 
 our galleries as had pleased a politically appointed board from the rural 
 districts? What kind of a sermon would even our most gifted divines 
 prepare if they realized that it was to be read and censored by a non- 
 religious board with absolute power of rejection or modification before it 
 could be delivered from the pulpit? Censorship is fatal to the growth and 
 development of any art. 
 
 Even the teaching of history by the medium of the screen could well 
 come under the ban of a board of censors for there is no vital period in 
 history that may not arouse the prejudice of some one today. Then, too, 
 history is immoral if measured by the rulings of censorship, for is it not
 
 replete with crimes of violence, with instances of vulgarity, indecency and 
 sin? "Joan the Woman," a great historical film, reverently treated, has 
 never passed the Canadian censors. 
 
 Censorship of the Film is Class Legislation, 
 It invades one field of artistic expression and leaves the others free. 
 Many stories have been widely published in magazines, in newspapers, in 
 book form, then have been dramatized for the stage. By what right may 
 the motion picture producer be penalized for attempting to translate it to 
 the screen? Is not the expression of thought by the medium of the film 
 entitled to the same protection under the law as its expression in print or 
 upon the stage? 
 
 Lazy thinkers are prone to attribute all evils to the motion picture. 
 Years ago it was the dime novel which destroyed the morality and taught 
 our young idea how to shoot. Later cigarette smoking was reputed to be 
 rapidly destroying our young manhood. Only a few years ago there was a 
 demand for a censorship of the colored supplements of the Sunday papers. 
 Wisconsin once considered placing a tape measure in the hands of an official 
 who was to see that "no actress or other female person shall appear on 
 the stage unless properly covered by skirts which shall extend at least four 
 inches below the knees." 
 
 The record of our boys in the Argonne, at St. Mihiel and before the 
 Hindenburg Line should have proved, this much at least, that neither the 
 uncensored film, the penny dreadful, the baneful cigarette, the irreverent 
 funny sheet nor the short skirt have entirely wrecked their manhood and 
 reduced them to moral and physical weaklings. 
 
 Censorship Cannot Usurp the Functions' or Exercise the Duties 
 
 of Motherhood 
 The great argument used by the advocates of censorship is that we 
 must protect the child, and to accomplish that desirable end it is proposed 
 to reduce the intellectual standards of a great and potential art to the 
 level of puerility. It is quite as impossible to bring the motion picture 
 down to the level of the child as to bring literature, painting, sculpture 
 and the drama down to a ten-year old level. 
 
 Before a mother allows her child to read a book she may first ascertain 
 if it is a proper book for the child to read. Before she takes him to a 
 dramatic performance she may assure herself that it is a proper play for 
 him to attend. Not all books nor plays are suitable for the infant mind; 
 nevertheless, we could not tolerate the repression or destruction of all that 
 appeals to maturity. Rather than chop the motion picture down to the 
 dimensions of the nursery and the kindergarten let us point the duty of 
 
 18
 
 mothers to ascertain the nature of the film entertainment her child attends, 
 and turn our thoughts to some other method than censorship. 
 
 The Public is the Best Censor 
 
 The only censorship tolerable in a free and enlightened country, 
 whether of the press, the pulpit, the platform, the stage or the film, is the 
 censorship of the people. That censorship, as exercised by the ten million 
 people who daily attend our motion picture theatres, has proven sane and 
 efficient. Pictures have shown a marked and steady improvement in tone 
 and character during the most critical period of their growth and that 
 improvement seems bound to continue since the great majority of pro- 
 ducers are opposed to suggestiveness, obscenity and salaciousness in any 
 form. By the very nature of the business of motion pictures, meretricious- 
 ness and indecency defeat themselves. 
 
 The penal code of our cities and states are sufficiently broad, if in- 
 voked and enforced, amply to protect the citizens, young and old, against 
 anything on the screen which in the opinion of properly constituted au- 
 thorities is debasing or unclean. Not until the administration of the 
 criminal law has failed and our courts have proven themselves incapable 
 of coping with infractions thereof, should censorship be seriously consid- 
 ered. 
 
 The Application of Censorship Results in Absurdities 
 
 A study of censorship elimination show the absurdities of the system. 
 Carmen was rejected in three states for three different reasons. Apropos 
 of this, Channing Pollock, in an article on censorship, wrote as follows: 
 
 "Considering that it is forty years since first she mouthed her mad 
 love to the music of Bizet, Carmen might have expected the deference due 
 old age. Beautifully filmed, and beautifully acted by Geraldine Farrar, 
 she came as a bolt from the blue to shocked and surprised 'boards' in Ohio, 
 Pennsylvania and California. Her ancient kiss, that inspired the first big 
 press 'story,' was ordered cut to five feet. 'Just for love, a little kiss,' 
 warbled the Buckeyes, and nothing more than a yard and two-thirds of 
 affection came within that allowance. 'All love scenes showing embraces 
 between males and females' were ordered measured and trimmed, leaving 
 the cigarette maker to give her life for a purely paternal peck from the 
 ■bashful bull-fighter, Escamillo." 
 
 The writer declares, however, that Carmen was not permitted to give 
 her life in Ohio, or in California, since a local board objected to killing 
 of a woman by a man, although there was no objection to the killing of men 
 by women, doubtless because, as he puts it, "girls will be girls." 
 
 19
 
 In Ohio every picture of a woman smoking must be eliminated, which, 
 of course, made the lot of the Spanish Carmen even more difficult. 
 
 A certain melodrama depicted the execution of plans for an assassina- 
 tion in an isolated house, and showed the villain cutting the telephone wires 
 in furtherance of his plans. No objection was made to the assassination, 
 but the picture was censored because it tended to inspire small boys to 
 tamper with wires. 
 
 Pennsylvania prohibited the showing of a farcical scene in which a 
 man burns a letter from his wife. To tear up the letter, it was explained, 
 would have been permissible, but burning showed contempt of the marital 
 relation. In Pennsylvania no scene may be shown of a mother making baby 
 clothes, the explanation being that children are taught that babies are 
 brought by the stork. When it was argued that even in that event chil- 
 dren would of necessity need clothing, the censors refused to change their 
 ruling. Any suggestion of approaching maternity is barred no doubt upon 
 the theory that Nature is too immoral for representation on the screen. 
 The nilings of every state board are replete with absurdities quite in keep- 
 ing with the examples above cited. 
 
 It is the aim of censorship to bar evil scenes from the screen and with- 
 out evil good goes unobserved. A rigid adherence to the rulings of the ex- 
 isting state boards would prevent the illustration of so elementary a lesson 
 in morals as this, viz. : "The wages of sin is death," for sin may not be 
 filmed. 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 Legalized censorship of the film is a dangerous departure in a free 
 country. It is no less dangerous than a censorship of the press or the stage 
 for it places a ban upon ideas. The indecent, improper and immoral film 
 can be eradicated by the same methods as are used against indecent, im- 
 proper and immoral books or plays. It may make the passing of films a 
 matter of political influence and result in consequent abuses of power. It 
 does not reflect public opinion but merely the personal views of the censors 
 themselves. The experiment which has been tried in other states does not 
 warrant New York making such a radical departure from the principles 
 upon which our Government is founded. Nor does there appear to be the 
 'necessity for that departure. Great as has been the improvement of the 
 film in recent years, it would be greater and more rapid were the menace 
 of censorship eliminated and the art allowed to develop along its natural 
 lines, governed by common sense and the good taste of the American people. 
 
 \ 
 
 20
 
 .. ■»•,■ mnucK 
 Syracuio, N. Y. 
 Stockton, Calif. 
 
 AA 000 770 148 5