39002
37
38
U'liVEhon/
r-pi| J312&
I he Question ,mR,
' ri
'vary.
of
Motion Pi&ure Censorship
Prepared by
The National Board of Censorship
of
Motion Pi&ures
70 FIFTH AVENUE
New York City
1914
?A-,
THE
NATIONAL BOARD OF CENSORSHIP
OF
MOTION PICTURES
ESTABLISHED BY THE PEOPLE'S INSTITUTE
70 FIFTH AVENUE
New York City. N. Y.
GENERAL COMMITTEE
Frederic C. Howe, Chairman
American Social Hygiene Association
Association for Improving Condition of Poor
Charity Organization Society
Children's Aid Society ...
City Club of New York .
City Vigilance League
Diocesan Commission for Social Service
Federation for Child Study
Graduates Club .
International Committee, Y. M. C. A.
Laity League for Social Service
League for Political Education
Music League of America . .
National Board, Y. W. C. A.
New York Federation of Women's Clubs
Public Education Association
People's Institute . . .
Prison Association of New York
St. Bartholomew's Parish House
The Boys' Club ....
Bascom Johnson
Wm. P. Capes
W. Frank Persons
Matthew P. Adams
Joseph M. Price
Matthew Beattie
Cranston Brenton
Mrs. Howard S. Gans
William J. Morris
Raymond P. Kaighn
P. F. Jerome
Robert E. Ely
R. S. Pigott
Mrs. G. K. Swinburne
Mrs. William Grant Brown
Mrs. Miriam Sutro Price
Lester F. Scott
Orlando F. Lewis
Rev. Charles B. Ackley
Lewis F. Downer
MEMBERS AT
Miss Martha Draper
Ralph Folks
J. S'. Hamilton
Lee F. Hanmer
Dr. Henry Moskowitz
Dr. Henry S. Oppenheimer
J. K. Paulding
LARGE
Mrs. Josephine Redding
Miss Mary Fynes
R. S. Pigott
Albert Shiels
Mrs. W. Lesnesne Tait
Dr. J. P. Warbasse
Maurice Wertheim
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Frederic C. Howe, Chairman
Ralph Folks Mrs. Miriam Sutro Price
Matthew P. Adams Dr. J. P. Warbasse
P. F. Jerome Mrs. Josephine Redding
John Collier .
Orrin G. Cocks,
W. D. McGuire, Jr.,
H. C. Mason,
W. A. Barrett, . .
STAFF
(on leave of absence)
General Secretary
Advisory Secretary
Executive Secretary
Assistant Secretary
Assistant Secretary
Telephone 4516 Chelsea
The Question of Motion Picture Censorship
1
CENSORING COMMITTEE
Miss Grace Abbott
Dr. Fred Hovey Allen
Mrs. Fred Hovey Allen
Miss M. Ashmun
Mrs. I. F. Beal
Mrs. Joseph J. Benjamin
Mrs. R. S. Blaikie
Miss M B. Blair
Mrs. Verne M. Bovie
Mrs. E. E. Britton
Mrs. Woodford Brooks
Mrs. Elizabeth Chester
Mrs. F. R. Colpitts
Mr. F. S. Crofts
Mrs. Harold Deming
Mr. Raymond Dye
Miss Lucy P. Eastman
Miss Frances Eberly
Mr. W. W. Elliott
Mrs. Henry Esberg
Mrs. Calvert Fish
Mr. C. P. Fisher
Rev. Victor G. Flinn
Miss Minnie Friedman
Mr. Bishop Gates
Miss Emily Gilbert
Mrs. Florence L. Gill
Mrs. John Greisel
Mr. George A. Hall
Mrs. Lee Hanmer
Miss Jeannette Helm
Mrs. B A. Heydrick
Mrs. Chauncey Hills
Miss Evelyn Holt
Mrs. L. M. Hornthal
Mrs. L. S. Jackson
Miss Sarah Jacobin
Mr Edwin S. Kassing
Miss Pauline S Keese
Dr. Frank Conrad Keil
Mr. Arthur Kellogg
Mrs Frederic Leake
Mrs J. B. Leake
Mr. E. A. Lee
Mrs. E. A. Lee
Mrs. Burdette Gibson Lewis
Mrs. Norvin Lindheim
Miss Anita Lott
Miss Marie Lott
Miss Gertrude Mautner
Mrs. Charles Meisel
Mr. George Miller
Mrs. George Moore
Mrs. Lily Wood Morse
Mrs L. C. Mygatt
Miss Louisa Orth
Mrs. Walter Pforzheimer
Mrs. W. W. Pickard
Miss Laura Popper
Mrs. W. E. Pulsifer
Miss E. E. Reed
Mrs. Walter Reidelsheimer
Miss Nora Reynolds
Miss Isabel Roberts
Mr. Louis Rouillion
Mr. John W. Sargent
Mrs. Henry W. Schloss
Miss Sarah Scott
Mr. Myron Scudder
Mrs. Myron Scudder
Mrs. J. H. Seymour
Mrs. Albert Shiels
Mrs. L. A. Sinclair
Mrs. Otis C. Skeele
Mrs. S. C. Steinhardt
Miss Esther Stengel
Mrs. N. Stratton
Mr. Henry Strycker
Mrs. Lionel Sutro
Mrs. Charles Tinker
Miss Maria Townsend
Mrs. Herman Von Wetter
Mr. A. W. Warden
Mr. O. C. Weist
Mrs. George V. Wendell
Mrs. J. N. Whaley
Miss J. Whitney
Mrs. Francis G. Wickware
Mrs. I. W. Wilder
Mrs. Butler Williamson
Miss Olive Wilson
Mrs. Charles Fort Wood
2
The Question of Motion Picture Censorship
The views of the late Mayor Gaynor, of New York City,
on the subject of censorship of motion pictures as expressed
in a letter to the Board of Aldermen at the time of his veto
of a motion picture ordinance.
City of New York, Office of the Mayor.
December 27, 1912.
To the Honorable the Board of Aldermen:
...In our fundamental instruments of government in this
country, which we call constitutions, we expressly guaranteed
from the beginning free speech and a free press, and pro¬
hibited the passing of any law abridging the same. The pro¬
vision in the constitution of this State on that subject, which
is substantially the same as the like provision in the constitu¬
tion of the United States, and also of the States generally, is
as follows:
"Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his
sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse
of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or
abridge the liberty of speech or of the press."
So universal has been the opinion that these constitutional
provisions abolished all censorships of the press, and forbade
them in the future, that I have been able to find only one at¬
tempt in this country to set up such a censorship before this
one of yours. Our constitutional provision plainly is that pub¬
lications whether oral, or printed, or by writing, or by pic¬
tures, shall not be restrained in advance, but that everyone
shall be free to speak or publish what he sees fit, subject to
being prosecuted afterwards for libel, immorality, obscenity or
indecency therefor. There seem to be a few among us who
wish us to retrace our steps, and resort to censorships again in
advance of publication, and make it a crime to publish any¬
thing not permitted in advance by the censor. Do they know
what they are doing? Do they know anything of the history
and literature of the subject? Do they know that the censor¬
ships of past ages did immeasurably more harm than good?
Do they ever stop to think that such censorships now would
do even more harm than they did in past ages, in comparison
with what little good they might possibly do? I do not be¬
lieve the people of this country are ready to permit any censor
to decide in advance what may be published for them to read,
or what pictures may be exhibited to them. Our laws forbid
the publication of any libelous, obscene, indecent, immoral or
impure picture or reading matter. Is not that enough? If
anyone does this he commits a criminal offense and may be
punished therefor.
If this ordinance be legal, then a similar ordinance in respect
of the newspapers and the theatres generally would be legal.
Are you of opinion that you have any such power as that? If
so, you should probably begin with the newspapers and the so-
called high-class theatres. Once revive the censorship and
The Question of Motion Picture Censorship
3
there is no telling how far we may carry it. These moving
picture shows are attended by the great bulk of the people,
many of whom cannot afford to pay the prices charged by the
theatres. They are a solace and an education to them. Why
are we singling out these people as subjects necessary to be
protected by a censorship ? Are they any more in need of pro¬
tection by censorship than the rest of the community? That
was once the view which prevailed in government, and there
are some among us, ignorant of or untaught by past ages,
who are of that view now. Are they better than the rest of
us, or worse?
THE ARGUMENTS SUMMARIZED.
1. Constitutionality.
The National Board holds such proposed legislation for
censorship is unconstitutional limitation of the freedom of
speech.
2. Politics.
Political appointees on Federal, State and local boards of
censorship are temporary and are open to many sinister influ¬
ences.
3. Federal Censorship No Solution.
Federal authorities will never be able to dictate to States
or cities what pictures they shall or shall not see. Other
boards of censorship will inevitably be demanded.
4. Legal Decisions.
The law is necessarily too inflexible to apply to all or most
of the complex situations presented in motion picture subjects.
5. Complex Ethical Questions.
Many of the film subjects most dangerous to morals belong
to the extra-legal group over which the Federal board would
have no legal jurisdiction.
6. Legal Censorship is Essentially Destructive.
The National Board is able by moral suasion to do con¬
structive work in censoring films, while the legal Federal
board would find itself limited to destructive censoring.
7. Paternalism in Morals.
The intelligent public have abundant protection against im¬
moral or illegal shows. A legal Federal board represents
class legislation or paternalism in morals.
8. Legal Censorship Oppressive and Unnecessary.
Legal censorship comes just before exhibition throughout
the country. The loss of business following the decisions of
a few commissioners would inevitably develop bitterness and
recourse to the courts.
The proposed Federal law gives no power of appeal from
decisions of a few people.
9. Censorship for the Whole Public.
Any censorship must be for the whole public. It is impos¬
sible to exclude from picture houses either sex or people of
4
The Question of Motion Picture Censorship
different ages of intellectual development.
10. Universal Public Enlightenment.
The educated American public recognize pictures, plays,
books, etc., which are objectionable. It makes use of the
law and public opinion in every city to remove unsatisfactory
pictures and to punish individuals attempting to make capi¬
tal by the presentation of immorality.
11. Legal Censorship Too Late.
Legal censorship of pictures comes at a time when much
thought and money have been expended. It stirs up a bit¬
terness and sense of opposition which leads manufacturers
and exhibitors to fight decisions in the courts. It assumes
that all pictures are guilty until they are declared innocent.
12. The Magnitude of the Work.
The enormous output of films demands the attention of
many skilled people.
Honest criticism results in eye strain and nerve strain.
The judicial temperament is shattered when many pictures
are seen continuously.
A great and increasing business should not be dependent
on a few persons, however skilled, who are certain to have
gome elements of bias.
In practice, the commissioners would be compelled to sit
as individuals each judging a per cent, of the motion picture
output for the entire country.
13. Censorship Intensely Human.
Moral judgments are often dependent on custom. As So¬
ciety changes so must censorship. It can never be static. It
must be responsive to public opinion. Since acceptable moral
standards have never been formulated for large masses of
people, the National Board receives and the proposed Federal
and State boards must expect unfavorable criticism from a
hundred different elements of Society and from business, pro¬
fessional, exhibiting and manufacturing interests.
14 Decisions on Moral Questions.
It is questionable whether the government has the right to
decide on questions that are fundamentally moral and are
complicated by questions of taste, custom and opinion for the
whole country. It is also questionable whether the Federal
and State authorities can hold the products of an industry
guilty and not subject to an appeal until they are adjudged
by several individuals to be innocent.
THE POSITION OF THE NATIONAL BOARD ON
LEGAL CENSORSHIP OF MOTION
PICTURES.
The National Board of Censorship is in favor of voluntary
non-official, co-operative censorship of motion pictures in con¬
trast to legal, official, pre-publicity censorship by authorities,
Federal, State, and local.
The Question of Motion Picture Censorship
5
In the Bill introduced into the Senate by the Hon. Hoke
Smith of Georgia, and into the House by Representative
Hughes, it is proposed that a commission of five shall be
appointed by the President. They shall serve for six years.
"The salary of the Chairman shall be $4,000 a year, and that
of each other commissioner $3,500 a year." The Commission
may appoint deputy commissioners and other assistants.
Those films are prohibited for entrance into inter-state com¬
merce which are "obscene, indecent, immoral, or depict a
bull-fight, or a prize fight, or are of such a character that
their exhibition would tend to corrupt the morals of children
or adults or incite to crime." This is the only statement in
the Bill defining the moral standards under which the com¬
mission would work.
The National Board understands the criticism of motion
pictures from actual experience. It is the only agency which
has attempted to work on a national scale. For five years, it
has continuously examined the bulk of the films put on the
market. It does not speak from theory but from extended
experience.
There are several fundamental differences between the work
of the National Board and the proposed Federal commission.
The National Board of Censorship operates on the basis of
agreement with the manufacturers and importers of motion
pictures to submit all their productions and abide by decisions.
It is a wise business policy on the part of the manufacturers
which accepts one unbiased criticism rather than a multitude
in the cities of the country. Federal censorship is compul¬
sory. It operates under law. The decision of the censors is
binding and there can be no appeal to the people of the
country.
The National Board is composed of a large number of
skilled persons and offers to the manufacturer the right of
appeal to a higher court of public opinion. The proposed
Federal censorship is conducted by five commissioners from
whom there is no appeal.
The National Board conducts its work through 135 volun¬
teers who fairly represent public opinion. They are carefully
chosen from those who have the judicial temperament, interest
in people, entire disinterestedness, an understanding of the
appeal of motion pictures. The proposed Federal board lodges
in five persons the power to pass yearly on nine million feet of
film for one hundred million people.
The National Board finds it important to obtain constantly
the various points of view of its 135 members with the assist¬
ance of experts. In practice the work of the Federal commis¬
sion would largely be done by one commissioner and on most
questions of doubt the decisions would come from five indi¬
viduals who are human and prone to error.
Federal consorship of motion pictures is not needed. There
6
The Question of Motion Picture Censorship
is no form of commercial amusement as widespread as motion
picture entertainments which are as wholesome, as inspiring,
as free from objectionable features and as full of educational
and cultural subjects. All attempts to criticise motion pic¬
tures unfavorably have been based on theory or with undue
emphasis placed upon a fractional per cent, of harmful
pictures.
Closely allied to the censorship of films is the question of
the physical surroundings in the motion picture houses. If
Federal censorship is undertaken, the inevitable result will be
the checking of local initiative. Local ordinances dealing with
light, ventilation, fire exits, public safety and vaudeville will
not be pushed. Undoubtedly physical and moral dangers will
remain throughout the country in their present chaotic condi¬
tion. The Federal board is not constituted to deal with these
subjects. The impression will become general that all matters
dealing with motion pictures can safely be left in their hands.
The arguments by which the National Board has arrived at
its conclusions are as follows:
Constitutionality. There are reasons to doubt the constitu¬
tionality of any such bill which would tend,
under law, to restrict the freedom of speech. The motion
picture belongs to the same class as the newspaper, the book,
periodical and play. It has always been adjudged sufficient
to proceed against objectionable newspaper and magazine
articles, plays and pictures after they have caused offence to
the public. This freedom of speech has been guarded through¬
out the history of the Nation.
Assuming that this fundamental objection will be overcome
in some way not now apparent, there remain objections in de¬
tail which, in the judgment of the National Board of Censor¬
ship, are practically conclusive.
Politics. The Bill, Senate 4941, under discussion, provides
that the commissioners shall be appointed by the
President. He is the head of his party even though he is
President of the Nation. It would be next to impossible to
keep politics as contrasted with social service out of the ap¬
pointments of commissioners since the selections must be
made from at least two other parties besides the dominant
one. Such commissioners would serve for a limited time,
scarcely long enough to estimate the moral sentiment of the
Nation, and they would constantly be open to strong political
pressure from various parts of the country. Experience with
the working of State censorship has led the National Board
to believe that just, efficient and disinterested criticism of
pictures would not be the primary aim of such a federal
board. One or all of the following would be more important
The Question of Motion Picture Censorship
7
than censorship: the revenue derived from tax on reels; the
political influence on and through the manufacturer and the
exhibitor; the place of political friends and constituents in
office; the suppression of certain types of subjects of political
or social import. There is, moreover, no warrant for assum¬
ing that such appointees would be of a type best fitted to
express impartially the moral judgments of the Nation. The
salaries assigned to them are insufficient to guarantee a su¬
perior type of commissioner. It would be intolerable to have
narrow-minded, biased representatives of the Nation open to
any form of influence.
Federal Censorship It is absurd to assume that the people
No Solution. in the States and the territorial posses¬
sions of the United States could ever
agree to accept the decisions of a Federal board of censorship
The standards adopted by such a board would prove unsatis¬
factory for Ohio, Oregon, or Oklahoma. These States would
insist on duplicating the work done at the National Capitol.
They would also insist there were many films which could not
be forced to be exhibited before the Federal commissioners.
Experience has convinced the National Board that many cities
would insist upon being laws unto themselves. Such suppres¬
sion would not suppress. It would mean confusion worse con¬
founded.
Legal It is impossible to express in a few general
Decisions, controversial words the ethical standards for
judging pictures. Any attempt to define legally
"obscene, indecent, immoral, or of such a character that their
exhibition would .tend to corrupt the morals of children or
adults or incite to crime" must fail. Such legal phraseology
inevitably throws back upon the commission the responsibility
for formulating detailed and well recognized rules of judg¬
ment. These, in turn, must be carefully stated and must be¬
come the basis for action so that the public and the manu¬
facturers will consider the fairness of the commission and
will know how to conduct their business. It would be in¬
tolerable to have arbitrary and varying judgments expressed.
Complex Questions The National Board has discovered,
of Ethics. after five years' work, that many deli¬
cate and complicated questions of
ethics are raised. Since the motion picture depicts life with
its motives, its thrilling experiences, its great moments, its vic¬
torious or disastrous outcome, it is essential that the standards
under which such dramatic situations are depicted shall be
broad, just and intelligent. While broad principles of judg¬
ment can be laid down, while a minimum can be established
beyond which no manufacturer will be permitted to go, the
critic of motion pictures must be granted latitude in deciding
8
The Question of Motion Picture Censorship
upon individual situations. It is undoubtedly true, also, that
20 persons looking upon a given picture will have a variety of
opinions just as they will differ in their decisions about people
who have become involved in controversial situations. These
opinions must be considered if justice is to be done.
Legal Censorship As a result of experience, the
Essentially Destructive. National Board of Censorship has
found that the best possibilities of
censorship can be attained only when combined with a con¬
structive policy. Censorship in itself alone is essentially de¬
structive and coercive. For this reason, the National Board
uses its influence with manufacturers and importers of films
to produce only such films as in some way have real social
value. By offering suggestions to the manufacturers, the Na¬
tional Board has been able to inspire a steady improvement in
the character of films produced. The manufacturers welcome
this help from an impartial board of independent people. This
work naturally progresses slowly, but it represents substantial
and effective education at the point of production.
Since it would be bound by legal precedent and decisions,
the Federal board would be unable to offer to the manufac¬
turers, the exhibitors and the public, positive, constructive
criticism.
Paternalism Public opinion and discussion do much to
in Morals. settle controversial points. There are always
groups who hold to realism and large freedom
for the individual. These believe in public discussion. There
are those, also, who emphasize reticence. Innocence appears
desirable. They are called by their fellows "puritanical." Those
who belong to this group will suppress much for the protec¬
tion of the child, the woman, the weak and the immigrant.
Fundamentally, they do not believe in the ability of Society
to protect itself or to decide moral questions. Between these ex¬
tremes to liberality and conservatism lie the rank and file of
the American people. Critics of motion pictures, who believe
in democracy, who have strong principles based on experience
and who look with clear and understanding eyes upon the sub¬
jects as they appear on the screen must expect adverse criti¬
cism. Moral questions will never be solved for the whole
people. There will always be those who disagree. This ap¬
plies not only to unofficial voluntary censorship, but is what the
Federal censors will have to expect. If such a bill were passed,
after the novelty had worn off and the decisions of the Federal
board were given publicity, indignant groups of citizens would
insist that this work be supplemented by city and State boards.
When one appreciates the foreign population, the extent of
the country and the variety of social classes in the United
States, he must concede to various communities modifications
of a minimum national standard.
The Question of Motion Picture Censorship
9
Legal Censorship There are many subjects which cannot
Oppressive and come within the scope of Federal censor-
Unnecessary. ship as defined by law which are the
every-day subjects for criticism by a non-
official, co-operative group like the National Board of Censor¬
ship. Because of its friendly agreements with the manufac¬
turers and in its representation of public opinion, it can easily
handle many of these questions. They lie within the realm of
taste. They are sometimes vulgar. They may deal with ques¬
tions of dress. The comedy element may be distinctly low.
They may present controversial themes in delicate or indelicate
ways. They may be harmful to certain elements of the com¬
munity. While acceptable in certain sections, they may pro¬
voke sectional prejudices. They may not come under the
"ban," but deal with "low life." They may present question¬
able and prolonged love scenes. They may present the three
cornered problem of infidelity. All these and many other sub¬
jects come within the scope of a board working in the in¬
terests of the public without legal standing. It can be pre¬
dicted with confidence that a Federal board would be unable
to handle satisfactorily this class of film subject.
. The conditions of exhibition of plays and
Judging for the motion pictures in the United States make
Whole .Public. impossible any segregation of pictures
which are dangerous to certain groups, while they are entirely
satisfactory for others. The same picture goes to the whole
American audience of men and women, young and old. This
means that any censorship provision does violence to many
classes of people who are abundantly able to express their ob¬
jections. They would regard such censorship as an unfriendly
attack.
TT . . _ , .. The American public is intolerant of
Universal Public judgments super-imposed by any class,
enlightenment. With our American system of education,
there has been developed throughout the country general moral
as well as intellectual independence. The people are quick to
detect those things which are objectionable. Their condemna¬
tion is expressed in many ways. They refuse to read certain
classes of books. They have recourse to the law. They frown
upon immoral plays so that they become commercially profit¬
less. They put the "ban" of public opinion upon individuals
who break over accepted standards or attempt to spread harm¬
ful doctrine. The laws and the courts reflect such public
opinions. This public opinion is not static but is ever-chang¬
ing. Since these are the facts, there is well formulated opposi¬
tion, both to the puritanical and the ultra-liberal positions. It
manifests itself in politics, social life, industry, morals and the
church. Far more can be accomplished in co-operative ways
than through legally appointed boards maintained under a
paternalistic rather than a democratic ideal of government.
10
The Question of Motion Picture Censorship
Legal Censorship Legal censorship comes too late to ob-
Too Late. tain the greatest results from the manu¬
facturers. They desire to market their
product just as other legitimate producers
have the right. Their outlay in money and time has been con¬
siderable. They have incurred expense not only in producing
the pictures, but in publicity and in the manufacture of from
25 to 100 separate films for the exchanges throughout the
country. When pictures were condemned by such a Federal
board with legal powers, the manufacturers would develop a
bitterness and sense of opposition which would make them de¬
sire to fight the decisions, through the courts to the limit.
Without making any concessions or losing one iota of inde¬
pendence, a voluntary board is able to influence its decisions
at a period when compromise is possible.
State laws and local city ordinances already exist which
more effectively handle the situation than Federal censorship
could do. Motion picture exhibitors who present immoral or
indecent scenes can be checked by the police or mayors with
suppression of films or temporary or permanent suspension of
show licenses. Such laws to punish any action, publications or
utterances against public morals are adequate for the protec¬
tion of the public. For five years, the National Board of Cen¬
sorship has called upon local authorities, mayors, license bu¬
reaus and police officials to suppress films which are not
deemed proper for circulation on the American market. The
response to these appeals has demonstrated the ability of locali¬
ties to handle moral situations without any recourse to Federal
enactment.
_ Few persons understand the de-
Nerve and Eye Strain. Q£ ^ worjc involved in the
Magnitude of the Work, censorship of the product of mo¬
tion picture manufacturers. There are being placed on the
market of the United States, at present, from 135 to 150 film
subjects per week. Within the last six months, the manufac¬
turers have turned to the production of themes which require
from 1 to 10 reels of one thousand feet each to produce. This
means that those who censor the entire product of the motion
picture art will critically examine from 225,000 feet to 250,-
000 feet of film weekly.
The increase over the production for 1912, was in 1913,
sixty-three and one-tenth per cent. There is no indication of a
falling off in this volume of production. It takes twelve min¬
utes to look at each reel of 1,000 feet. While 80 per cent, of
the film subjects require no criticism or changes, the conscien¬
tious critic must examine them all impartially. He must be in
the frame of mind of the average spectator. When the film
subject has passed in review, he immediately assumes the at¬
titude of a moral critic.
If eliminations, changes in sub-titles or scenes are to be
The Question of Motion Picture Censorship
11
made, he must note not only the effect of the individual scene
but its relation to the subject as a whole. This results in a
tremendous nerve strain. No criticism or change can be made
without reasonable justification. The censor, therefore, with
his fellows, must have reasons for his opinions and state them
in conjunction with others.
A small official board will find the work of examining and
justly criticising 225,000 feet of film a week, a well-nigh im¬
possible problem. The National Board, with 19 censoring
committees a week and membership of 105 persons, finds
the nerve strain exhausting. It is needless to say that the
work of censorship is valueless unless it is done completely,
impartially, judicially and justly.
When the manufacturer is aggrieved, and the members of
the committee or the secretary feel that large portions of the
picture should be eliminated, an appeal is made to a disin¬
terested group of highly intelligent citizens serving voluntarily
on the General Committee, a court of last appeal. A quorum
of seven is necessary for decisions. The action of this group
is final.
Although the National Board does not represent Society, it
approximates the decision of Society. The elements, both con¬
servative and liberal, are harmonized in the course of such
frank discussion. The will of the majority carries.
Co-incident with the nerve strain should also be considered
the eye strain attendant upon the steady criticism of pictures.
Unless the work is divided, a point is reached with the most
conscientious critic when he is unable fairly to estimate moral
values. In any discussion of motion picture consorship, this
practical detail must be emphasized.
Censorship The National Board frankly acknowledges that
Intensely it does not reach one hundred per cent, of the
Human. motion picture field. It is, however, continually
criticising over 95 per cent, and is increasingly
proving to the irresponsible and more recent manufacturers
that its endorsement is necessary. The National Board is a
human institution, dealing with problems of controversy which
have been in existence throughout the ages of organized So¬
ciety. It reflects a public opinion which constantly varies. As
Society formulates intelligent theories and principles of con¬
duct, it must inevitably alter its decisions. The Board freely
grants differences of opinion to various classes and to various
constituent parts of the Nation. It also agrees that some of
its decisions may wrongly interpret the will of Society. It
does not assume omniscience.
Since the National Board is working for the entire country,
it appreciates the importance of co-operative local criticism.
The following plan has, therefore, been suggested and has been
12
The Question of Motion Picture Censorship
adopted in many cities:
A Working The Board issues each Saturday an entire
Arrangement, list of motion picture subjects reviewed dur¬
ing the week, with the action taken upon each.
These bulletins are sent throughout the country. Local au¬
thorities and censor boards are encouraged to make use of
these bulletins and to concentrate their attention upon pictures
which have been criticised for eliminations or changes, which
have been condemned in toto, and for those pictures which
have not been submitted to the Board, but which have been
listed for release and sale. The Board agrees to bring pres¬
sure to bear upon the producers of objectionable and immoral
films when they! are reported to it. It also calls to the at¬
tention of local authorities those pictures which may be re¬
garded as demoralizing. It urges on local authorities the
wisdom of legal action when pictures are exhibited which
violate the standards of a given community. Authority is
vested in mayors, licensing authorities, the police and the
courts to immediately suppress such pictures. This furnishes
a plan of co-operation, a flexibility and a local responsibility
which are not included in the plan of the Federal censorship.
HISTORY, ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE OF
THE NATIONAL BOARD OF CENSORSHIP.
The National Board of Censorship was organized in March,
1909, by the People's Institute at the request of the theatres
exhibiting motion pictures in New York City. The scope of
the work became National in June 1909, at the request of the
manufacturers of motion picture films. Since that date, the
Board has gained an increasing control over the films exhibited
in America.
The Board has been, since June, 1909, administered by the
People's Institute of New York, whose clerical machinery is
utilized in part by the Board. The Board is self-governing in
all particulars, establishes its own standards, elects its own of¬
ficers and executive staff, and controls its own finances.
The Board is composed as follows: a general committee of
32 representatives from 13 civic agencies located in New York,
together with certain disinterested, public-spirited individuals;
an Executive Committee chosen from this membership; and a
Censoring Committee of 105 members. This Censoring Com¬
mittee, divided into sub-committees, is at work at least five
days each week.
The General Committee was called together by the People's
Institute at the beginning of the Board's existence, and elects
its own members. The Censoring Committee is chosen by the
General Committee, its members being elected for terms of
three months.
No member of the Board is engaged in any branch of the
The Question of Motion Picture Censorship
13
motion picture business, and no voting member is salaried di¬
rectly or indirectly for his services. These members are drawn
from every source, as professional people, social workers, and
others interested in motion picture problems.
The members of the National Board give their thoughtful
attention to the pictures and try to reflect what the people of
the United States would think about any given picture were
they sitting en masse to view a picture. These censors are
cultured men and women, trained to look on the activities of
life from the broad viewpoint of their social significance, and
are in sympathy with the best life and aspirations of the people.
The volunteer Censoring Committee, which views all pictures
submitted to the Board, is divided into a number of sub-divi¬
sions, each one of which gives one morning or one afternoon a
week to viewing pictures. A majority of those voting deter¬
mines the action of the Board on any picture. An appeal from
the verdict of the Censoring Committee may be taken by any
dissatisfied member of the Committee, by the Secretary, or by
the owner of the film in question. The General Committee has
the power of final review. The film is again exhibited before
the General Committee; members of the Committee of the first
inspection state their reasons for or against; the owner of the
film presents his defense of the film; and the General Com¬
mittee reaches the final verdict. As soon as final action is
taken, the owner of the film is notified in writing, and the noti¬
fication is sent through the weekly Bulletin to correspondents
of the Board.
In following up its verdicts to see that they are faithfully
executed, the Board uses a number of methods.
1. The Board carries on local inspection in the New York
theatres. As it is usual for the Board's recommendations to
be carried out in the original negative from which all copies
are made, a change which appears in a film seen in New York
will likewise appear in all other copies of the film.
2. The motion picture trade papers contain very complete
advance information about all films designed for regular re¬
leases. Films are sold through advertisements printed in these
papers. In addition, special or so-called State Rights films
are usually sold through advertisements printed in these papers.
In this way the Board is able to check up the films inspected
and to detect films which may not have been submitted to it
for inspection.
3. The Board co-operates with the several local censoring
boards, such as the Detroit, Portland, San Francisco and the
Chicago Board, all of whom see either all films which come to
their city or a large part of them. The numerous correspon¬
dents of the Board, who receive its weekly Bulletin, are ex¬
pected to inspect films shown in their city and at least to make
a special search in order to ascertain whether any condemned
film is shown and whether all changes recommended by the
14
The Question of Motion Picture Censorship
Board are carried out in the films shipped to their locality.
4. The National Board also receives reports from several
social organizations, boards of public welfare, and police de¬
partments, who make it their business to inspect films listed
as bearing eliminations on the weekly bulletin issued by the
Board. These organizations report to the National Board
whether the changes requested in pictures have been faithfully
carried out. When unfavorable reports are received, the matter
is at once taken up with the manufacturer and an adjustment
effected.
If the Board learns that any manufacturer has made a film
public without submitting it to the Board, or that he has failed
to carry out the requests of the Board regarding suppressions
or alterations, this fact, unless promptly rectified, results in a
complete severance of relations between the owner of this film
and the Board. In other words, the Board reviews in advance
either all a manufacturer's product or none of it, and continues
this advance inspection only so long as the manufacturer uni¬
formly carries out the Board's recommendations. Even where
the films are not thus reviewed, in advance, the Board makes
every effort to see them after they begin to be publicly ex¬
hibited, and notifies its correspondents if it detects anything
objectionable.
If an objectionable film is made public the Board promptly
notifies the film exchange which might purchase this picture
and the civic bodies and police agents whose duty it is, in case
they agree with the judgment of the Board, to suppress the
picture. This necessity does not arise frequently, and in every
case such action by the Board has resulted in a return of large
quantities of film to the manufacturer and in a serious loss of
money to him. Instances of this kind are increasingly rare.
The New York Tribune, under date of May 3d, 1914, says
in part as follows:
A bill has been introduced into Congress to create a Na¬
tional Motion Picture Commission. Senator Hoke Smith and
Congressman Hughes, both of Georgia, are the sponsors. The
bill proposes that every motion picture which goes into inter¬
state commerce be previously inspected and passed by a com¬
mission of five men sitting in Washington and that no film be
allowed to be shown outside of the State in which it is made
unless it bears this commission's stamp of approval.
The mechanical difficulties alone are sufficient to make this
bill, as at present framed, extremely undesirable. So rapid is
the output of film in this country that each of the five commis¬
sioners would have to inspect different pictures. This would
result in making one man the judge of what is suitable for the
entire country's entertainment.
Faults of this nature can be passed over in considering the
bill, because there are so many other vital objections. In the
The Question of Motion Picture Censorship
15
first place, the constitutionality of the Smith-Hughes Bill is
decidedly doubtful. It is the opinion of many prominent legal
authorities that the United States Supreme Court should the
bill be passed, would decide that the law violated the constitu¬
tional guarantee of the right of all persons to a free expression
of their beliefs and sentiments.
The need of any censorship is growing less every year, but
to do away with it entirely would not be wise just now. Yet
this is virtually what would result if the Smith-Hughes Bill
should become a law. Paradoxical as it may seem, this attempt
to improve censorship would practically do away with it. How¬
ever reluctant the film makers might be to see it happen, the
passage of the act would automatically kill the National Board
of Censorship. This would mean that within the limits of each
State there would be no check on unscrupulous manufacturers
and anything could be flashed on the screen which oftentimes
too indulgent police would allow. The stamp of the National
Board of Censorship is now universally recognized by civic of¬
ficials throughout the country as determining whether or not a
film is suitable for exhibition.
The National Board of Censorship is the best solution of the
national problems which has yet been conceived, even though
it has many faults. Its members believe that eventually no cen¬
sorship will be needed, and when that time comes the organiza¬
tion will disband. As it now exists it stands or falls on its
own merits. To destroy it by legislation which would so in¬
adequately provide for doing its work as the Smith-Hughes
Bill would be inimical to the best interests of the country.
Every person interested in any way in motion pictures or in
their effect should protest against the enactment of this ill-timed
legislation. The National Board has turned chaos into order,
and to reverse the process is at best an ill-advised procedure.
16
The Question of Motion Picture Censorship
STATISTICS OF FILM CENSORING.
January 1, 1913, to January 1, 1914.
Total number of reels first inspected 7,066
Total number of reels, including re-inspection... 7,576
Total number of film subjects inspected 5,740
Total number of feet of sample copies inspected
(average copy containing 1,231 feet) 8,698,246
Number of subjects condemned in toto 53
Number of sample copies from which elimina¬
tions were made 401
Number of feet elminated from sample copies
afterward approved (averaging 30 feet elimi¬
nated in each sample copy) 12,030
Total number of feet elminated from sample
copies including films condemned in toto 77,273
Cost to manufacturer of negative destroyed
(negative $1.50 per ft.) $115,909.50
Cost to manufacturers of sample film destroyed
(sample film at 4c. per ft.) $3,090.92
Sales value to manufacturers of film kept off the
American market $463,638.00
Total cost to manufacturers of negatives, sample
copies and sales copies kept off the American
market $582,638.42
Number of volunteer members on the committees
on the National Board 135
Number of meetings of the General Committee
for 1913 41
Number of meetings of the Censoring Commit¬
tees, 1913 988
Aggregate hours of attendance of the volunteer
members, 1913 9,880
Number of weekly bulletins mailed to correspond¬
ents, including mayors, police heads, license bu¬
reaus, social organizations, and individuals,
weekly average 366
Number of correspondents throughout the country
allied with the work of the Board, exclusive of
official Bulletin List 220
Note:
The monthly average of sample reels inspected,
January 1st, 1910, to January 1st, 1911 231.8
Monthly average from October 1st, 1911, to Oc¬
tober 1st, 1912 (an increase of 60.3 per cent.
to the effectiveness of its work and advise with local com¬
munities on their problems of films regulations; extension of
in the volume of inspection) 371.6
Monthly average from January 1st, 1913, to
January 1st, 1914 (an increase of 63.1 per
cent.) 588.9
National Board of Censorship of Motion Pictures