Mutual Decision (Denis Baya)

Ohio state claimed the National Board of Review as unsuccessful. With that being said, Ohio state wanted to have their own censorship board that films must meet to be approved for release. They ripped people off because; each film corporation must pay a fee to the board in order to get reviewed.        

   Mutual Film Corporation sought to go against the state under three terms: This law affected interstate commerce, this law gave power to a group of people that were not elected to make laws and standards about films, and this law violated the first amendment, free speech.After being rejected by the district court, Mutual petitioned to the Supreme Court. In a surprising decision, the court rejected the corporation’s claims. The court accepted that films were a form of expressing opinion, but they were pure business rather than press. The court also said that this law did not affect interstate commerce because the censorship was within the state. In the end, the court disregarded Mutual film corporation claims that delegation boundaries were hazy. 

Mutual Decision-Lindsay. C

In 1913, the state of Ohio created a “board of censors” called the Industrial Commission of Ohio.  This board was given the power to censor films, they deemed as inappropriate for the public.  At the same time, the state also passed a law making it illegal for anyone to display movies in Ohio, prior to the approval of the Industrial Commission of Ohio.  According to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, people have the right to what is referred to as “Due Process,” which means everyone must follow the same laws.  But as much censoring as the film industry was been subject to, with exception of profanity, the newspapers, magazines and other forms of media were all protected by “Freedom of Speech” and could say what they pleased. These new and unfair laws infuriated the film industry, and in an effort to protect their civil rights and keep motion pictures free from censorship, the Mutual Film Corporation rebelled and eventually took The Industrial Commission of Ohio to the United States Supreme Court.

The Mutual Film Corporation tried to get the court to approve an “interlocutory injunction,” which would have temporarily made it illegal for Ohio to censor the films shown in Ohio. The Mutual Film Corporation, who also distributed films into Ohio and other states from another film-exchange in Detroit, Michigan, also believed that the state government of Ohio was intentionally trying to disrupt and “create an unlawful burden on interstate commerce.”

Unfortunately, in 1915, Supreme Court Justice McKenna did not pass Mutual’s request of an interlocutory injunction and disagreed with Mutual’s argument about interstate commerce being intentionally burdened. Instead the court ruled that the civil right to “Free Speech,” outlined in the First Amendment in of The Bill of Rights, was not applicable to motion pictures, because it was a form of business. The court also ruled that regardless of “due process,” newspapers, magazines and other forms of media do not have to follow the same censorship guidelines as the motion pictures. The belief of the Supreme Court was that the appeal of movies was so intriguing and powerful, that the film industry could potentially use this power “for evil.” The court feared that people would not be able to distinguish between an actual educational film and a film that was in reality an instruction manual for violent behavior.

However, I feel that in this particular case, the state government of Ohio along with the Supreme Court of the United States, was in fact the one who was took advantage of power. I believe the state and the court, twisted the laws in the favor of their own beliefs, thereby creating unfair rules and limitations for the film industry to follow. I believe one reason the state of Ohio acted against the Mutual Film Corporation was because they were jealous that the film industry was making such a large profit through the distribution of films in Ohio. This case is a perfect example of how greedy the government can be and how quickly the “so-called” God given rights can be taken away.

 

 

 

 

Mutual Decision-

 In the case of Mutual Film Corp v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, there were three main arguments made by Mutual:

• Due Process (fairness): “Deprives complainant of a remedy by due process of law”
• Free Speech: The statute violates this freedom 
• Delegation: attempts to delegate legislative power to censors and to other boards to determine whether the statute offends in the particulars designated 

The case starts with an explanation and description of “film” and how it differs from other sources of entertainment. Film is described as “being projected upon a screen with great rapidity” which “appears to the eye an illusion of motion.” The case goes on to explain how photographs in newspapers, magazines or publications (even if they depict real life) do not depict “a harmful or immoral character,” like a film would. The way this information is presented, automatically singles out films as being the only “immoral” form of media. This argument is the source of why due process of law becomes an issue. Mutual felt if they were going to be censored, then other forms of media should have censorship as well.

The case goes on explaining the business and financial aspect of film companies. Mutual film is blamed for “imposing unlawful burdens on interstate commerce” because they sell film in Ohio AND Detroit. Ohio forced Mutual to pay a fee before releasing any film to the censorship boards. In my opinion, Ohio was purposely trying to make things difficult, hoping the film industry would give up with wanting to distribute films. In the end, things became complicated and excessive. The fee for pre-production ended up being more money to process, which in the end results in economic damage.

The debate of free speech becomes a discussion later in the case and Ohio has some interesting things to say. Ohio states that only “films of a moral, educational, or amusing and harmless character shall be passed and approved.” This is very misleading because who is to decide what exactly is moral, educational, or amusing? The venue films are viewed, and the “potential” dangers absorbed by its audience become a big concern. A fear for the general public viewing corrupting material becomes emphasized. Films in general, are enjoyed by a large array of people (young, old, men, women,). There is a concern that the mixing of an unsupervised audience is not suitable for all people, especially for children. The courts also stressed that the motion picture industry is a “business” therefore it is not protected in freedom of press.

In the end, the court ruled in favor of the censorship board, turning down all three arguments made by Mutual Film Corp. Protecting society from being tainted by the evils of film, seemed to be the main concern of the censors. I do agree that some material should be filtered to a degree, (especially with children) but not to this extent. I don’t agree that a censorship board, or any individual for that matter, can determine what is right and wrong for a society.

Mutual Decision

In 1913 the Ohio State Board challenged film censorship and the National Board of Review by stating that “only films that are in the judgment and discretion of the board of censors of a moral, educational or amusing and harmless character will be approved for distribution in Ohio” (Black 15).   The Mutual Film Corporation instantly disagreed with this action and reacted by filing suit against the Industrial Commission of Ohio noting the following complaints:  (1) the statue deprives the complainant of due process of law (2) the statute goes against the 1^st and 14^th amendments of the U.S Constitution which protect free speech, and (3) furthermore, the statute attempts to give the board of censors legislative power without presenting any type of guide which will determine the board decisions of films.   The District Court ruled in favor of the Ohio State Board.  Therefore, the Mutual Film Corp. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where the appeal was also denied.  The Court ruled that movies were “a business pure and simple and not regarded as part of the press or as organs of public opinion” (Black 16).  Moreover, the court also added that movies may be used for evil not just because of a film’s content, but because of the location where men and women are forced to gather together in a dark room with children when promiscuous events could take place. Overall, I don’t agree with the courts decision, but I do think that states should have the right to protect their citizens from what they consider dangerous material.  I don’t think that films are in any way dangerous.  Furthermore, I think filmmakers should be able to express themselves because movies are just facts or opinions of stories often based on real events.  

Mutual Decision – Elaine B.

Background: The State of Ohio passed a law requiring all film distributors, before public exhibition in Ohio, pay a fee and submit each film to a board of censors for approval. The board follows the guidelines of Section 4 of the censorship statute: “only such films as are, in the judgment and discretion of the board of censors, of a moral, educational, or amusing and harmless character shall be passed and approved by such board.”

Mutual Film Corporation, a company that made and distributed motion pictures in a time-sensitive manner, challenged this law in the Ohio court system, lost the case, and then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, making the following complaints:

1. The Ohio statute violates the following laws of the Ohio State Constitution:
   1. Article 1.5: the right of trial by jury
   2. Article 1.16: The right of redress by courts
   3. Article 1.19: Inviolability of private property

Here Mutual is arguing that the censorship board bypasses the judicial system.  Mutual also argues that being forced to pay these fees before movies are released interferes with interstate commerce, as it distributes films in several states.

1. The Ohio statute violates the right of freedom of speech as stated in Article 1 of the United States Constitution and Article 1.11 of the Ohio State Constitution.

1. The Ohio statute gives the board of censors legislative authority that should only be given to the state general assembly (who were selected by the people of Ohio to represent them.) The board was also given the power to order the arrest of anyone showing publicly airing films that have not passed through the censor’s hands. As there are no publicly posted standards in place for the board to refer to in regards to censoring films, the board cannot be held accountable for their decisions.

 

The US Supreme Court upheld the Ohio Court’s decision. As a counter argument, they point out:

1. The law only applies to films being shown in Ohio, and does not apply to films being distributed out of state. Therefore, it is not interfering with interstate commerce.
2. Motion pictures are a business, not an art, and have a greater capacity for influencing evil. Therefore they should be closely regulated for the good of the public.
3. It’s nearly impossible to define Section 4 of the Ohio statute more specifically.

I can certainly understand the frustration Mutual felt in dealing with a censorship board that was given such free reign. According to the document, Mutual distributed films with the intent of releasing all films on the same day. The censors, if feeling contrary, could hold up a film’s release in several states. If the film was a news clip, they could ruin that film’s chance of ever being shown due to the time sensitivity of the material.

I am really quite surprised by the ruling of the US Supreme Court. Mutual was challenging the legality of the censorship board, and the Court turns around and challenges the legality of films. They tell Mutual that if their films were harmless they shouldn’t have any problem with the censorship board. Mutual is protesting that the board isn’t following any specific set of rules, are not representing the citizens of Ohio because they were not elected, are collecting tax-free fines*, and have the power to arrest people! The US Supreme Court does not address these issues, except in vague reference to the difficulties in defining ‘moral’ or ‘harmless’ motion pictures, and to cite other cases where ‘opinion and caprice’ were found acceptable standards.

 

*(at least, I think that’s what this means: “. . . the fee for censorship, which is not properly an inspection tax, and the proceeds of which will be largely in excess of the cost of enforcing the statute, and will in no event be paid to the Treasury of the United States.”)

Mutual Decision -kate

In the case of Mutual Film Corporation v. the Industrial Commission of Ohio, Mutual arugued that Ohio violated the free speech provision guaranteed in the Federal and Ohio Constitution. They also stated that the censorship board of Ohio was interfering with interstate commerce because there was a fee for the approval service in order to exhibit a film. Furthrmore, Mutual argued that the government had illegally delegated its legislative authority to the censorship board because the guidelines for gaining approval were too vague.

The court stated that the film industry “is a business, pure and simple.” It was established in order to make a profit and is not regarded as part of the press. Since it is not regarded as part of the press, the freedom of speech does not extend to the film industry. The court also stated that the film industry’s “power of amusement, and it may be, education, the audiences they assmeble, not of women alone nor or men alone, but together, not of adults, but of children, make them more insidious in corruption by a pretense of worthy purpose or if they should degenerate from worthy purpose.” Basically, the audiences that movies bring in are so diverse that the films which are produced are not appropriate for every audience member. The subject matter of the film can cause curruption, even if it is educational. This is especially true in cases where the film strays from its educational prupose, or it wasn’t really educational at all. They also stated that some films could be used “for evil.”

The decisions of the court in this case seem ridiculous. Their reasons which back these decisions are even more ridiculous. They state that the film industry is not a part of the press because it makes a profit; however, the press is not a nonprofit organization. There is no evidence that really details the film industry to not be included in the press. The idea that less educated people would be easily influenced by dangerous behavior in films is an ignorant idea. Not only uneducated people commit crimes, and to argue such a point shows the stereotypical approach to government that our courts may have. Anyone can commit a crime. Likewise, not everyone is that easily influenced. Free speech should have been extended to the film industry. Furthermore, if censorship boards were going to be established to approve films, a clear set of guidelines should have been made for such a process. By leaving the process open and vague, it made it easy for any movie to be rejected because the producers had no idea what was considered appropriate and what was not.

Mutual Decision

In the Mutual film corp V Industrial Commission of Ohio three main points were brought up, the first was that the statute imposed an unlawful burden against interstate commerce, the second was that the statute violated the freedom of speech granted by the constitution and the third was that it attempted to delegate legislative power to censors. The supreme court shot down all of these allegations, saying that the censorship was only imposed in Ohio and that they had the authority to censor such films because they may be used for “evil”. Another interesting argument brought up by the court to describe the type of “evil” that the film company’s were up to was when they discussed how films were trying to cover up their hidden agenda. “Their power of amusement, and it may be, education, the audiences they assemble, not of women alone nor of men alone, but together, not of adults, but of children, make them the more insidious in corruption by a pretense of worthy purpose or if they should degenerate from worthy purpose.” Translated in to words that the average person can understand, their trying to say that although films my seem like they have a just cause for the film, like education, their real motives are hidden and “evil”. Overall the decision was really hard to follow and seemed to branch off on very detailed descriptions of film.

Mutual Decision- Joe S

On complaint brought was that the statute violated laws regarding interstate commerce, this argument was rejected by the Supreme Court because of the realities of distribution at the time. Some think that if the film industry had waited and those realities had expanded this complaint could have been considered valid. Another was that it violated free speech, this was rejected along the same lines as the Hays Code had sought to regulate it. It gives legislative power to a non-legislative body which is in violation of the Constitution, this to was rejected.

Mutual Decision-Laura M

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio Case in 1915 stated three major complaints: “The statute in controversy imposes an unlawful burden on interstate commerce; it violates the freedom of speech and publication guaranteed by 11, article 1, of the Constitution of the state of Ohio;1 and it attempts to delegate legislative power to censors and to other boards to determine whether the statute offends in the particulars designated”.  There is also a fee charged when films are exhibited to the board before they are delivered to the exhibitor for exhibition.  “Films of a ‘moral, educational, or amusing and harmless character shall be passed and approved,’ are the words of the statute”, but this can vary to anybodies standards.

Mutual Decision (Jon M)

The Supreme Court Case “Mutual Film Corp. V. Industrial Commission of Ohio” the was the first major court case to be brought against any local censorship board. The issues raised in the case by the Mutual Film Corp. were that the censorships boards limited film exchange by charging a fee for approving the film, as well claiming that the boards limited the freedom of the press, the final argument that was made was that the statute unfairly gave the censors legislative power to determine whether or not a film was potentially offending. The first argument was shot down by the court when it replied that “The censorship, therefore is only of films intended for exhibition in Ohio,…immediately put to one side the contention that it imposes a burden on interstate commence.” As for the second issue that the censors violated freedom of speech for the films the court basically said that since certain films could be used for “evil” purposes it was acceptable to maintain a certain level of censorship and deemed it to be “..in the interest of public morals and welfare to supervise moving picture exhibitions.”

They also made it clear that they did not believe films to be covered by freedom of the press since they claimed that the motion picture industry was “a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit.” Making it clear that they considered film to be outside the area covered by freedom of the press. As to the third issue  of whether or not the legislative power could be delegated to the censorship board the court decided in favor this principle of allowing administrative boards to handle legislative decisions. In the end the Court ruled in favor of the censorship board. While today this may look like a violation of free speech by denying a film company the ability to make whatever they want and to censor anything that might offend one group it has to be looked at in the context of the time when film was still new to the world and while today it might be obvious that everybody wouldn’t have the same reaction to everything at the time it was so new nobody could be sure how people would react to film.