From Regulation to Censorship: Film and Political Culture in New York in the Early
Twentieth Century
Author(s): Nancy J. Rosenbloom
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Oct., 2004), pp. 369406
Published by: Society for Historians of the Gilded Age & Progressive Era
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25132414 .
Accessed: 11/02/2012 17:45
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Society for Historians of the Gilded Age & Progressive Era is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era.
http://www.jstor.org
to Censorship:
From Regulation
in New York
Film and Political
Culture
in the Early Twentieth
Century1
J. Rosenbloom, Canisius College
Nancy
be
stood at the core of the relationship
struggle over censorship
culture of progressivism
the political
and early moving
pictures.
a democratic
and
alike
historians
the
art,
by contemporaries
moving
The
tween
Called
to participate in the new mass culture of the early
to
As some early film makers began to use the medium
twentieth-century.2
tell stories, those sitting in small theaters in towns and cities across America
saw before
world
that was nonetheless
them a make-believe
plausible
pictures
invited audiences
commentary
on
the
the
past,
and
present,
the
future.
What
unre
remained
solved was
in the
how those who championed
political reforms, ostensibly
of
and
democratic
harness
the
power of
language
progressive
politics, might
in redefining American
the medium
political and social life. How much
power the moving
men and women,
more
democratic
and its mass
audience might assume energized
in New York City, who sought a
particularly progressives
culture, politics, and social life. They regarded the political
pictures
potential of the moving
masses
in an age when
they tried and ultimately
of the First Amendment.
as essential to the empowerment
of the
pictures
social boundaries were in flux.3 At the same time,
failed to extend
to moving
pictures the protection
in the political
believed
they
for a democratic
culture. In creating
did this because
They
and artistic possibilities
of the medium
a
plan to elevate the moving
pictures and their places of exhibition,
they
became locked in a confrontation with other reformers who feared the awe
some power
of the screen to hasten modernity
and all that it implied.4
to thank Alan Lessoff,
!Iwant
and Geoffrey
for their insightful
Joel Schwartz,
Klingsporn
on earlier drafts of this article and
comments
and knowledgeable
especially
Larry E. Jones
for his support
I would
and advice.
also like to thank the Canisius
Summer
College
Faculty
Fellowship
Program.
theMillion: Coney Island at the Turn of the Century (New York,
2John Kasson, Amusing
1978);
Janet Staiger, Bad Women: Regulating Sexuality in Early American Cinema (Minneapolis,
1995). See
also Kathy
Peiss, Cheap Amusements: Working Women and Leisure in Turn of the Century New York
1986); as well as Garth
(Philadelphia,
Jowett, Film: The Democratic Art
(Boston,
1976); Lary
May,
History
Screening Out the Past
of American Movies
(New York,
(New York,
agrees
3My reading of this group
Struggle for Urban Partidpatory Democracy
"The Work
4See Walter
Benjamin,
Walter
Benjamin,
Illuminations,
1980);
and Robert
1975).
with Kevin
Sklar, Movie-Made
Arendt
A
Cultural
a Democratic
Creating
Republic:
Park, PA, 1998).
(University
of Mechanical
Reproduction,"
(New York,
1968): 217-51.
Mattson,
in the Progressive Era
in the Age
of Art
ed., Hannah
America:
Journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra 3:4 (October 2004)
The
in
370
Journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
Much
middle-class
of the dialogue over how to control
reformers with dissimilar views
in regulating
government
over
des
temperance
the medium
took place among
the role and purpose of
life. In ways similar to the bat
about
social and political
and women's
2004
the
suffrage,
debate
over
moving
picture
at the local, state, and national levels. In
censorship
searching for
the proper role of government
in regulating public and private life, reform
ers could not agree on how to define
moving
pictures as art or business,
unfolded
or commerce. Nowhere
is the relationship between progressive
speech
poli
tics and moving
more
to
than
in
understand
picture censorship
challenging
New York, the sixth and last state to create a state
board
and
censorship
home to the largest, most dynamic and
heterogeneous
city in America. New
York
tion
City is significant for what
in the context
developed
it tells us about how moving picture regula
of an urban cultural politics
that encom
passed
the broader world
of commercial
George
Creel. Dedicated
to
entertainment,
predated the mov
ing pictures, and reflected the city's class and ethnic tensions.5 Equally im
for a vibrant group of progres
portant, New York City served as a magnet
sive activists including Frederic Howe,
and
John Collier, Sonya Levien,
born,
families
working-class
municipal
to
acculturate
their
services,
new
helping
foreign
and
environment,
ex
the social roles and political responsibilities
of women,
they also
a defense of
a
the me
moving
pictures in period when
panding
to formulate
helped
was
dium
providing
when
under
Greenwich
crusades
of men
claimed
the moral
attack
from
social
Village represented
like New York's
and
moral
conservatives.
an artistic Bohemia
In
a decade
and the anti-vice
Canon William
S. Chase
Episcopal
over
the
high ground,
pictures censor
struggle
moving
was
art and what
how
revealed
thinkers
delineated
what
ship
progressive
was leisure, what was business and what was
speech, and where regulation
start and stop. Howe, Collier, and Levien in
particular championed
on ideas
free speech for the moving
based
pictures
intellectually consistent
with their beliefs in individual liberties and a socially responsible municipal
should
government.
a seed
provided
ground for the moving
picture industry and
In this context,
its earliest business organizations.
the creation in 1909 of
the Board of Censorship?which
itself into the Na
transformed
quickly
New
York
tional Board
Review?as
of Censorship
Board of
and was later renamed the National
most
the defender of the motion
is
the
picture industry
signifi
5For a fuller discussion
From
of the issue, see Daniel
"The Politics
of Performance:
Czitrom,
to Movie
in Turn of the Century New York," American
Licensing
Censorship
44 (1992): 525-53;
and Daniel
"Underworlds
and Underdogs:
Czitrom,
Big Tim
in New York,
Politics
78
and Metropolitan
1889-1913,"
journal of American History
Theater
Quarterly
Sullivan
(1991): 536-58.
Rosenbloom / From Regulation toCensorship
\ :I
ffiyffif*': m|Bl
=^Hj;
''El:W"
i^iL ..nnnl^^lni^iff^M^ftB^1" k ll?& * flilJ .&&&.W
^'
^ffl^^ftllfiilflB
371
- .-\W '%
:::.:.:,.-.S::::;,::;..'::.:
^B::- Sb^eS^S^J^^-^j^w^^^^^^1
ll^tS'-- '--^t^^i
Actress
Ethel Grandin
front left, and actor William
plays Lorna Barton,
Cavanaugh
front center, in a scene from the controversial
1913 film, Traffic
plays Bill Bradshaw,
Souls. From
Center
the collections
of the Wisconsin
for Film and Theater
Research,
Madison.
Reprinted
by permission.
cant
in
to protect
in understanding
how the industry attempted
itself
controls not only in New York City, but in the nation as a
re
whole. Janet Staiger has argued that at the same time the progressive
formers helped to organize the National Board of Censorship,
the industry
from
factor
external
was
a strategy for
independendy
developing
regulating the images that ap
on the screen.6
reformers
and the moving picture indus
peared
Progressive
sustain them for the better part of
try thus formed an alliance that would
the decade in a struggle with conservative
critics over whether
censorship
should be voluntary or legally enforceable
it should be in the
and whether
or
of the industry, reformers, or municipal,
federal
authorities.
state,
over
to
The following essay contributes
the politics of film
the discussion
hands
It originated
in an effort to understand
censorship.
1912 and 1915 including
cinema produced
between
the socially conscious
The Inside of theWhite
Slave Trade, Traffic in Souls, Cry of theChildren, and The Italian. These were but
a handful of
seen
by the audiences flocking to the aging nickelode
pictures
ons and new theaters of the
the vari
period, but they dramatically exposed
that appeared over and over again in essays appear
ety of urban problems
like The Independent, The Survey, and McClurefs
ing in progressive magazines
For a fuller discussion
of the strategy
6Staiger, Bad Women. 86-115.
see
"Between
Reform
and Regulation:
industry,
Nancy
J. Rosenbloom,
Film Censorship
1 (1987): 307-25.
in Progressive
Film History
America,
pursued
by the film
over
The
Struggle
372
journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
2004
a
suggested
and still is a
between
the two media
Magazine. The dynamic relationship
connection
between progressivism
and filmmaking
that was
fertile field
for further
breaking work
component
While much
essay builds
inquiry. The following
of Lary May who recognized
progressivism
was
to
what
understanding
being projected
on
the ground
as an essential
on
the
screen.
of recent
scholarship by Roy Rosenzweig,
Kathy Peiss, Liza
beth Cohen,
and Steven Ross has drawn attention to the relationship be
tween
pictures and the politics and culture of the American work
moving
to the work of film historians
like Eileen
ing class,7 this study is indebted
a sys
and Janet Staiger who have undertaken
Bowser, Richard Koszarski,
of the cinema, its modes
tematic discussion
of production
and representa
to
Of
in
and
its
business.8
transformation
tion,
big
particular importance
a historical
in the
of the struggle over censorship
understanding
teens
in
the
shows
how
fostered
dis
early period, Staiger
moving
pictures
the bounda
cussion of sexuality and gender in such a way that it extended
shaping
even while
regulating sexuality and gender. In this
way, Staiger's work in particular reaffirms Lary May's discussion of the ways
in which
the motion
picture business became partners in what would be
ries of polite
discussion
as a
and consumer
decidedly middle-class
society.9
class
culture
and
the
relation
interest
in
consumerism,
working
Eclipsed
by
ship between film and progressive politics deserves closer scrutiny.
seen
in the twenties
My
study
seeks
to
the
reexamine
relationship
between
progressivism
and
on
1909
the question of censorship
between
moving
pictures specifically
reformers sought to legis
the idea that progressive
and 1922. It challenges
In
the
late control of the moving
pictures.
existing body of historical litera
ture there remains
the gap between
the
and
pragmatic
efforts to bridge
group whose
largely misunderstood
of Greenwich
the political and artistic discussions
Village
a
goals
of
community
activism
were
most
successful
be
to prevent the estab
1912 and 1915. Although
they ultimately failed
in New York, all the same, an examination of
of a state censorship
for film and social historians
their voices and legacy offers an opportunity
to develop a more nuanced understanding
of the optimistic belief held by
tween
lishment
aNew Deal: Industrial
see Lisabeth
to Peiss, Cheap Amusements,
Cohen, Making
1919-1939
Eight Hours for What
(New York,
1990); and Roy Rosenzweig,
1870-1920
in an Industrial City,
Workers and Leisure
1983); and Steven
(New York,
7In addition
Workers
We Will:
in Chicago,
Ross, Working Class Hollywood: Silent Film and the Shaping of Class inAmerica
1998).
(Princeton,
1907-1915
see Eileen
The Transformation
8In this respect,
Bowser,
(New York,
of Cinema,
The Age
An Evenings Entertainment:
of the Silent Feature Film,
1990); and Richard Koszarski,
1915-1928 (New York, 1990).
on
a fascinating
of the impact of regulation
discussion
9Staiger, Bad Women, 86-87. For
see Lee Grieveson,
of classical Hollywood
the development
cinema,
Policing Cinema: Movies
too late for
and Censorship in EarlyTwentieth
appeared
(Berkeley, 2004) which
Century America
in this article.
consideration
Rosenbloom / From Regulation toCensorship
373
in the power of the free exchange of
in the twilight of progressivism
studied below
social discourse.
ideas in productive
Indeed, the progressives
as ameans
to develop a new cultural consensus,
welcomed moving
pictures
men
and
mediate between social classes,
thereby blunt social conflict. These
some
were self described
feminists and cultural pluralists, and they
to regulating
saw in the cinema potential for a new urban order. Dedicated
of the screen, they shared with
the onus of censorship
theaters without
and women
other
to
a commitment
progressives
a
safer
and
cleaner
but
environment,
of screen.
a clear line between regulation of space and regulation
they drew
intellectual and radical
in the shadow of New York's
acted
They
as Christine
where,
culture
has persuasively
shown, art and politics were
and sex dominated.10
about women
and discussion
Stansell
intertwined
closely
Moral and social conservatives
held faith that the sermon
could convert
the
and protect the faithful and feared that the moving
pictures could
to sexuality
references
subvert these efforts in the blink of an eye.11While
in
for
the
these
and morality were sometimes
years,
progres
synonymous
wicked
of
to a more general understanding
also suggested a means
sives morality
the basis of social harmony, individual liberation, and community
responsi
that underlay each of these concepts.
bility and the political dimensions
and the progres
The exact nature of the dialogue between filmmakers
sives
remains
elusive,
but
three
important
conclusions
are
clear.
First,
the
themes of
in accordance with the main
industry operated
an
at
with
the
alliance
peak of
progressivism
political life, seeking
the increasingly partisan political
its influence and later, to accommodate
motion
picture
American
scene of the war years, forming trade associations
and hiring lobbyists. Sec
the motion
picture industry
ondly, the profound
changes that characterized
new
to
1909 and 1922, encompassing
everything from
technology
to
the industry, affected the responses
legislation.
censorship
restructuring
These
internal struggles made any internal cohesion difficult. And finally, a
between
of the struggle over censorship
full understanding
out looking at the intersection between American
cannot
be reached with
political life and the cul
ture it supported. How
the culture negotiated
images that were deemed
even as the limits of
public discourse expanded ultimately had
permissible
as much
to do with an understanding
of power and the political process as
with changing cultural values. All of this underscores
the ways in which
the
struggle
over
10Christine
Stansell, American
(New York, 2000).
nOn
the moral
Out
provided
Moderns:
the thread
Bohemian New
that bound
the motion
York and the Creation
of
aNew
pic
Century
see
of reformers
crusades
that attacked moving
pictures,
May, Screening
In my opinion,
from the goals of his
Frederic Howe
had departed
esp. 43-59.
Reverend
Charles Parkhurst,
Institute.
by the time he joined the People's
the Past,
mentor,
censorship
374
Journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
tures and progressivism
together
in the making
2004
of amodern
American
cul
ture.
*
*
Late
*
in 1908 Tammany Mayor George McClellan
on Christmas Eve.12 McClellan's
closed all
dramatically
action brought debate
over how to
re
to a critical point. His decision
regulate moving
pictures
flected the anti-Semitism
that had infected his police department
under
the nickelodeons
Bingham.13 Theater owner and entrepreneur Wil
the
action and asked for a temporary injunc
challenged
mayor's
to give him and others time to find a more permanent way to prevent
Commissioner
Theodore
liam Fox
tion
the theaters
from being arbitrarily shut down. On behalf of the exhibitors
of New York City, Fox appealed for help to Charles Sprague Smith, Direc
tor of the People's
based settlement house and a
Institute, a community
hot-bed
of progressive
reform.14 Sprague Smith was already interested
in
a field
au
the
had
nickelodeons
and
improving
supported
investigation
thored by John Collier, a social activist employed by the People's
Institute
would go on to have a major impact as Commissioner
of Indian Af
fairs under Franklin Roosevelt.
rooted in the fertile soil of New
Deeply
who
York
lobbied
politics,
on
a
the People's
variety
of
issues
Institute
of
historically
concern
to New
opposed
York's
Tammany
Hall,
classes,
working
to municipal
solutions
that ranged
and generated non-partisan
problems
to leisure.15 Sprague Smith and Collier now turned to
from unemployment
characterized
the Motion
Picture Patents Company,
by historian Robert
as a
state of the art business the
that
Anderson
capitalist enterprise
applied
came the
film industry.16 Out of these conferences
ory to the domestic
to the dual
inMarch
1909 and dedicated
established
Board of Censorship,
goals of the uplift of the industry and the principle of voluntary censorship.17
drawn from contempo
of anti-Semitism
and Sunday closings
12For a lengthy discussion
see Tom
D. W. Griffith and theNarrator
in New York newspapers,
rary accounts
Gunning,
1908-1909
in Biograph Films,
Structure and Industry Organisation
(Ann Arbor,
System. Narrative
Microfilms,
MI, University
1986), 469-79.
on the Lower East Side," in Arthur Goren,
The
Politics
13See Arthur Goren,
"Socialist
Politics and Public Culture ofAmerican jews (Bloomington,
1999), 87-89.
of the film
of the organization
31-32. For a discussion
14Jowett, Film: The Democratic Art,
Film (New York,
see Lewis
1939); Benjamin
Hamp
Jacobs, The Rise of theAmerican
industry,
Film Industry from Its Beginnings to 1931 (New York,
ton, History
1970); and
of theAmerican
in The American
A Reevaluation"
"The Motion
Picture Patents Company:
Robert Anderson,
1985), 133-52.
(rev. ed. Madison,
Industry, ed., Tino Balio
see E. A. Russell,
15For the political
Institute,
agenda of the People's
183-89.
10
Institute,"
Craftsmen
(May 1906):
ple's
141-44.
Picture Patents Company,"
"The Motion
16Anderson,
Film
17Nancy J. Rosenbloom,
"Between
Reform
and Regulation."
"Work
of
the Peo
Rosenbloom/ From Regulation toCensorship
The Board
375
in
of Censorship,
renamed the National Board of Censorship
in protecting New York's nickelodeons
and at the
succeeded
June 1909,
same time articulated
a strategy to make the small theaters safer and more
most power
this
In
regard, Sprague Smith and Collier exerted the
pleasant.
the most vociferous
ful influences on the policy of the Board. Among
pro
moters
even
as
less
they championed
finding cleaner,
crowded, and less hazardous exhibition
spaces than the current nickelode
that the moving
and
Smith
Collier
ons, Sprague
recognized
picture offered
of
the medium
for supporting the leisure of industrial workers and
possibilities
in
their families. Collier was especially interested in improving conditions
five
scattered among New York's
the hundreds of storefront nickelodeons
tremendous
the moving
picture
boroughs.
By transforming
centers
and by encouraging
the production
social
shows
into cleaner,
safer
of quality entertainment,
to saloons, dance halls, and the streets.18
to create alternatives
he hoped
in empathy with the workers
the question
and sought
Collier approached
as part
for community play rather than anti-saloon
advocacy
opportunities
of an anti-vice or morals campaign.19 At the same time, Collier and Sprague
Smith
insisted
officers
serve as the
of voluntary
censorship
key
to
in
its
attempt
picture industry
uplift itself in the
of negotiation with the
public. Through months
of the New York ex
and
Company
representatives
that the principle
strategy for the motion
eyes of the middle-class
of the Patents
to establish a sys
hibitors, they hammered out a non-partisan
arrangement
were
to review moving
tem using volunteers
that
submitted by
pictures
most of the film producers without
legal coercion. Collier played the central
role in clarifying the parameters of motion
picture regulation in New York
all, his advocacy of the moving
City. Above
pictures remained predicated
on the principle of voluntary censorship. Whereas
he enthusiastically
pur
sued the regulation of the theaters, he justas earnesdy rejected legal censorship.
At the same time that Collier was working on the details of the Board of
once again
in the spring of 1909, Mayor McClellan
Censorship
challenged
to issue seven-day
Fox's
interests by refusing
licenses to Coney
Island
as
which
Fox
owned.20
Gustavus
Amusements,
attorney for
Rogers, acting
Fox Amusements,
time an Appellate
an injunction
of the Supreme
secured
Justice
from William
Court
of New
at that
Jay Gaynor,
as
York. Regarded
18For a more
see
of Collier's
discussion
social goals,
complete
J. Rosenbloom,
Nancy
and the Motion
in Popular
Picture
Reform,
1909-1917,"
"Progressive
Censorship,
Industry,
Culture and Political Change inModern America,
eds. Larry Bennett
and Ronald Edsforth
(Buf
"In Defense
of the Moving
Pictures: The
falo, N.Y,
1991), 41-59; and Nancy
J. Rosenbloom
the National
Board of Censorship
and the Problem
of Leisure
in Urban
Institute,
People's
American Studies 33 (1992): 41-60.
"In Defense
of the Moving
19Rosenbloom,
20
Island Tests Sunday Law," Moving
"Coney
America,"
47-51.
Pictures,"
Picture World, 4 (April 4,1909).
376
journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
if...
2004
l|il|B
to New
in the Great Smoky Mountains,
1907, shortly before his move
John Collier
to work with the People's
York
Institute and the National
Board of Censorship.
From
the John Collier Papers,
1978 addition, Box
and Archives,
12, Folder 3, Manuscripts
Yale University
sympathetic
Librarv.
Reprinted
to Brooklyn
bv permission.
and the aspirations of New York's ethnic
the idea that there should be discrimination
interests
minorities,
rejected
Gaynor
one class of amusements
against
made it clear that he championed
such as the moving
picture theaters and
the rights of labor in supporting Sunday
the Sunday closings
Sunday closings. Behind
and in opposing
showings
lurked the issue of anti-Semitism
Gaynor.
exhibitors
Above
all, however,
the political
which
McClellan's
vulnerability
was
not
addressed
term in office
of "a common
drove
show
by Judge
home to the
license," which
Rosenbloom / From Regulation toCensorship
2TI1
"was not property, but only a privilege" dependent on the mayor's office.21
to step down from
Not
long after this decision, Judge Gaynor decided
for the mayor's office. His victory was
the bench and challenge McClellan
as well as from anti
Tammany Hall,
in
office, Mayor Gaynor
reformers, including John Collier. Once
Tammany
the
of
initiated a campaign for a massive
sup
clean-up
police department,
port for better housing, improved education, and more children's recreation
secured with
facilities. The
ture theaters
the licenses
from within
support
new mayor also expressed an interest in making moving
pic
safer. To this end, early in his term Mayor Gaynor
cancelled
of all motion
picture theaters because of fire hazards and poor
a
consistent with the goals of the Board of
conditions,
position
to uplift the moving
Censorship
pictures.22 For Fox and other exhibitors,
how to negotiate new challenges that focused on safety issues posed a busi
ness
contrast to the religious or ethnic challenge of the Sunday
problem in
sanitary
ther
success
Fox's
closings.
forming
Daniel
corroborates
worlds,
in
Czitrom's
of New
"the underworld
to
alliances
enhance
that Fox
evidence
York's
own
his
commercial
stature
fur
two
connected
leisure" and corporate
America.23
In the meantime,
Sprague Smith and Collier had secured the support of
in their efforts to medi
Picture Patents Company
executives of the Motion
ate between
the Mayor's office and more conservative
reformers on behalf
a
and put into motion
confronted
plan of uplift. When
a
with criticism from the public that the moving
exerted
bad influ
pictures
ence
on women
or
were
and children
that the theaters
especially
breeding
of
the exhibitors
grounds
for
disease
and
unseemly
behavior,
public
the
officers
of
the
Pat
agreed in the language of their social class to an uplift of the
industry. Mosdy native-born, Protestant businessmen,
they believed that the
on
less government
of
their
whether
the basis of taxation
affairs,
regulation
ents Company
or censorship,
ents Company
commitment
the Pat
all, the key to the alliance between
Board of Censorship
in
their
mutual
lay
This meant voluntary
submission of films by
the better. Above
and the National
to voluntarism.
the participating
companies,
by the Board, and voluntary
reviewing
committees.
voluntary
compliance with suggestions made
as
to paid service by members
of the
opposed
as
to
The uplift of the moving
referred
vol
pictures,
summarized
untary censorship,
in its early months
ship, which
21Justinian, "New
670-71.
22,1909):
York
Exhibitors
the work
of the National
targeted what members
and Their
Political
22John Collier, From Every Zenith (Denver,
1963J, 72.
23See Daniel
and Underdogs."
"Underworlds
Czitrom,
Power," Moving
Board
regarded
of Censor
as
Picture World,
vulgar
4 (May
378
journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
scenes
2004
as
unhealthy theater conditions.24
and
the
office focused on changing the
Sprague Smith, Collier,
Mayor's
as
a
process of theater licensing
strategy of uplift. Gaynor's
relationship
with the Board of Alderman with whom he shared governance
of Greater
was
York
New
films as well
in foreign
complicated
by his relationship with Tammany
to Tammany
"made no concession"
Hall.
Al
Hall, he
though Gaynor
reportedly
was
that "at its local levels, it [Tammany]
understood
the friend, the helper,
the understander
of the poor" and that he could ill afford to ignore its hold
on neighborhood
families.25 In an attempt to
politics and working-class
reach out to middle-class
Gaynor's
Hall. On
supported
Tammany
thin line between
reformers, Tammany boss Charles F. Murphy had
over
for mayor
from within
candidacy
opposition
the question of moving
pictures, Murphy had to walk a
the concerns of the Catholic hierarchy and Irish voters
about what was
on the screen and the interests of progres
being depicted
at the People's
in improving
of
the conditions
Institute
such as these worked
their way into the Board
exhibition. Tensions
movie
as a
where John Purroy Mitchel,
of Aldermen,
high hat Irish
regarded
sive reformers
a
in 1909
something of
prig, had been elected president
to Tammany.26 As Gaynor
and
Mitchel
and
those
by Republicans
opposed
so too did the Mayor's
office and the Board of Alderman
clash
competed,
Catholic
and even
in their parallel
in safer
interested
to
attempts
the Board
theaters,
pictures. While
regulate moving
of Aldermen
Gaynor
on
more
focused
was
how
to
on the screen and preferred
to leave theater licensing in
depictions
hold made the situation
the
Police
Commissioner.
the hands of
Tammany's
control
for Sprague
challenging
together
the
the
interests
film manufacturers
of
Smith
uptown
and
the
and Collier,
and
who
downtown,
were
the
struggling
classes
and
to bring
the masses,
reformers.27
the New York City policy with re
22, 1910, Collier described
as
In a letter to Frank Dyer, president
"unsetded."
pictures
gard to motion
that "there will
Picture Patents Company, Collier predicted
of the Motion
On March
forces" between
be a clear lining up of opposite
a
favored
those
who
and
co-operative
censorship
those who
method
supported legal
such as the Board
From this struggle Collier calculated that the Board would
of Censorship.
in the past, because New York is in the
prevail "because of the work done
a liberal cast of mind."28
a
the
liberal City, and because
main
Mayor has
see Rosenbloom,
"Between
on the
early efforts of the Board of Censorship,
310.
and Regulation,"
25Collier, From Every Zenith, 72-73.
26The author would
to Joel Schwartz
for his insight into
like to express her appreciation
of New York politics.
and nuances
the personalities
44-45.
"In Defense
of the Moving
Pictures,"
27Rosenbloom,
Edison
to Frank
Document
March
Collier
File, Edison
1910,
Archives,
22,
Dyer,
28John
24For more
Reform
Rosenbloom / From Regulation toCensorship
379
death on March 30 enhanced the role that Col
Sprague Smith's unexpected
lier would
in
Institute and the National
the People's
play
representing
in discussions with the mayor's office and the Board
Board of Censorship
Late in 1910 the Board of Aldermen
of Aldermen.
held public hearings on
an ordinance
to pressure
in response
from Reverend
Charles
proposed
for official prior censorship
and others campaigning
of moving
a
pictures that would replace the National Board of Censorship with
public
board of censors with legal authority to preview films and reject those they
Parkhurst
considered
restraint
created a mechanism
for prior
objectionable.29 The ordinance
to the concept of cinematic
that stood in direct opposition
uplift
by the National Board. At the hearings, Collier appeared in oppo
practiced
sition to public censorship,
spoke in favor of the work of the National
on the
to
Board, and objected
eliminating all "crime pictures"
grounds that
a
of
them
teach
moral
close
with
the
"many
high
lesson....They
usually
over evil."30
triumph of good
Collier and Mayor Gaynor both identified municipal
ordinances
control
a
as
the
ling
licensing of storefront theaters
priority for reform. In the fall of
to
asked Raymond
of Accounts,
Fosdick, Commissioner
a
on
on
the
theaters.
condition
of
the
A Report
prepare
report
moving picture
Condition ofMoving Picture Shows inNew York City, popularly known as the
1910
the Mayor
was
inMarch
1911, just weeks before the Trian
Report,
published
all, the Fosdick Report recommended
gle Factory Fire of March 25. Above
an office of the li
over
jurisdiction
centralizing
moving
picture shows in
cense bureau and
the size of the
revising building codes to accommodate
Fosdick
audience.
Fosdick's
conclusions
business
comparable
litical function rooted
to vaudeville
underscored
that
the
moving
and the stage but with
aspects of American
in non-theatrical
was
pictures
a didactic
a
and po
culture.
Sys
re
and a comprehensive
survey of local conditions
investigation
vealed to no one's surprise that physical problems with sanitation, ventila
Fos
tion, and fire in the theaters impinged on public safety. Significandy,
a
dick supported Collier's contention
that moving pictures shows had
viable
tematic
role to play in neighborhood
recreation, and he complimented
the National Board for its role in the uplift of the moving
pictures. Fosdick
that the city had to address building problems
concluded
rooted in an in
and valuable
entertainment.
Fosdick
demon
adequate system of licensing commercial
strated abuses in a system that was decentralized
because of the relationship
as well as the
among the boroughs
overlapping
authority of multiple offices
Park Service, United
Historical
States Department
of the Interior.
Site, National
29New York Times, October
Power
11, 27, November
17, 1910. See also David Hammack,
1982).
andSodety, Greater New York at the Turn of the Century (New York,
National
New
York Times, October
11,1910.
380
Journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
and recommended
the centralization
2004
in one municipal
of control
office,
in
the
of
licenses.
namely
department
to revise
Centralization
of offices would
require the Board of Aldermen
to appoint a
asked the Mayor
the City Charter, and to that end Fosdick
to consult with the Board of Aldermen.
committee
Fosdick was most con
an office
about problems
stemming from the Building Code of the City of
and especially from section 109, which provided
that "any build
and erected for the accommodation
ing intended for public entertainment,
of more than three hundred persons, shall be built to comply with certain re
cerned
New
York
in many of the six hundred thea
quirements."31 The deplorable conditions
to Fosdick's
ters that accommodated
fewer than 300 persons,
according
random sampling, were due to poor ventilation,
inadequate fire protection,
rec
For this reason, Fosdick
and improper construction.32
overcrowding,
a
new ordinance modeled
after Boston's
ommended
that the city prepare
that singled out halls
motion
that served 400
In
theaters.
picture
this way,
to 800 people
new
show
and could be used
houses
were
not
as
for
expen
to meet
fire and safety stan
they would be if forced
to
meet
increased safety
dards set for vaudeville. Still they would be forced
standards that became even more critical after the Triangle Factory Fire.
sive to construct
as
Mayor Gaynor used Fosdick's
that included Collier
committee
report as a green light to appoint a special
to work with the aldermen on framing an
were
reportedly good friends, condi
In the coming months
tions appeared optimal for maximum
cooperation.
Alderman Ralph Folks, who also sat on the executive committee of the Na
drafted an ordinance centralizing responsibility
tional Board of Censorship,
and Fosdick
Since Mitchel
ordinance.
"In a nut
Bureau of Licenses.
for the moving
pictures shows in the city's
a
to
create
"the
committee
shell," Collier explained,
censorship
proposed
than statutory, and would eliminate
rather
in
administrative
character,
radically
the courts as far as possible from the problem of morally regulating the per
formances."33
to keep moving
pictures out
especially concerned
courts.34
dockets of municipal
a
1911 to
public hearing in his office in November
Collier was
of the chaos and crowded
Mayor
Gaynor
held
31Raymond B. Fosdick, A Report
6. In 1911 there were 450 theaters
290 with
concert
on the Condition
in Greater
New
ofMoving Picture Shows
common
York with
all these, 600 theaters
licenses. Of
File, Edison Archives.
on the Condition ofMoving Picture Shows, 11.
or theater
1911),
(New York,
and
show licenses
sat 300 or fewer
patrons.
The
is in Document
pamphlet
32Fosdick,
Report
1628-29.
"Movies
and the Law," The Survey 27 (January 20,1912):
33John Collier,
see
of the weaknesses
of New York's municipal
discussion
34For a contemporary
courts,
of
in American
of the Municipal
"The Administration
William
Courts,"
McAdoo,
Academy
and Insti
Political
Science, Government of the City of New York City: A Survey of Its Organisations
tutions (New York,
1915), 196-206.
Rjosenhloom/ From Regulation toCensorship
381
ordinance, which included provisions permitting entry
to unaccompanied
children under sixteen between 3 and 6 p.m. on school
at
and
time
any
up to 6 p.m. on other days, or until 7 p.m. provided
days
that they were segregated in a separate part of the theater and supervised by
discuss
the proposed
had bought a five dollar license from the mayor. The ma
trons, to be hired and paid by the theater licensee, had to be "women of
from
character, not under forty," who had "two statements
good moral
a matron
who
to her character."35 The draft of the
reputable New York citizens attesting
called Neighborhood
Work
bill met with resistance from an organization
ers, who were angry that the ordinance went too far by segregating children
and adolescents
and hiring a matron. Collier in particular agreed with the
in order to satisfy
but along with Folks was willing to compromise
reformers and get their support for the new administrative procedures. Col
lier later pointed out that that the supplemental
report dealing with admis
workers
sion of children
is almost
law
was
What
no
with
social workers,
sixteen
under
unanimity
of opinion
controversy
vigorous
save on the one
point
among
that the
violated."36
universally
at
had "aroused
stake
in
the
over
controversy
the
ordinance
proposed
were
two different
issues: first, what aspects of moving
picture uplift required
and, second, if
government
regulation and what should remain voluntary
there was agreement on the need for a new system of licensing moving pic
or
ture theaters, where should control reside, with the police commissioner
in a centralized
office of licensing? Issuing licenses had been intimately
two hundred exhibitors
to the size of the theater. Now,
connected
argued
over
whether
the
new
was
ordinance
an
or
improvement
not.
The
Folks
that several members
of the Board
sparked such strong emotions
over
of Alderman
threw punches at each other
whether
licensing should be
ordinance
to a Department
from the Police Commissioner
of Licenses.37
a
to
to
showhouses
the
number
of exhibi
Hoping
"oudying areas,"
expand
tors insisted on different regulations
for moving
and
picture showhouses
over
theaters.38 As the months
conflict
the
Folks
ordinance
intensi
passed,
transferred
fied. Collier
to vaudeville
and Gaynor's
in motion
representatives
objected
on account of the fire haz
fewer
than
600
seating
primarily
theaters
picture
ard from
morality,
35"New
stage and scenery. To the extent they considered public taste and
to physical safety.39 In a
this concern was minimal
in relationship
York
Picture
Theater
543-45.
18,1911):
^Ibid.
See also Collier,
"Movies
37"Punch in the Jaw of Alderman
Ordinance
Discussed,"
The Moving
Picture World
10
(No
vember
and
the Law."
Levine
Handed
inMoving
Picture Debates,"
New
ing Argument
MNw York Times, December
2,1911.
39John Collier, "Film Shows and Lawmakers,"
Over by Alderman
York Times, November
The Survey 29
(February
White
as a Convinc
29,1911.
8,1913):
643-44.
382
journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
2004
leader reportedly with investment
in vaudeville
twist, a Tammany
and with the support of vaudeville
and small theater owners made
with moral
a
reformers
shows
a deal
to the Folks model
by adding
censorship provision
in an effort to undercut competition
from motion
pic
tures.40 By now, Mayor Gaynor had lost all patience, and he vetoed the en
tire ordinance in January 1913 because of the "provisions
therein creating a
theater ordinance
censorship."41 Moving
pictures, Gaynor
argued, were entitled to protection
under the first amendment
of state and federal constitution.
In a sentence
that would
tution
be quoted
tomean that
again and again, Gaynor
interpreted
the state consti
or
publications, whether oral,
printed, or by writing, or by
not
shall
in advance, but that every
be
restrained
pictures,
one shall be free to
or
sees fit, sub
speak
publish what he
afterward
ject to being prosecuted
obscenity or indecency therefore.42
for
libel,
immorality,
the Folks Ordinance,
voiced
of the
Gaynor
vetoing
appreciation
men and their families,
came to the movies
in
those
who
working
especially
the whole ques
the afternoon. He suggested that the class bias underlying
In recognizing
tion of censorship had to be confronted.
that moving picture
By
shows
were
not afford
"attended
by
the
great
bulk
of
the
people,
many
of whom
can
to pay the prices charged by the theaters," he defended
them and
to
"as
be pro
be
should
subjects necessary
why they
regarded
questioned
in
tected by a censorship?"
Incensed, Gaynor wrote: "Are they any more
than the rest of the community? Are they
need of protection by censorship
better
than
rest
the
of
us,
or worse?"43
Gaynor's
reputation
as
a constitu
to his position
the
that this ordinance violated
lawyer lent credibility
state
the
constitu
York
and
of
both
the
New
federal
free speech provisions
tional
and the
in his veto, he had drawn together the masses
as
in
of
the
law.
Follow
the
classes, seeing
eyes
homogeneous
a hero
to
class audiences, to Col
became
he
his
veto,
working
especially
ing
to those in the trade
at
and
National
the
lier and the progressives
Board,
audi
who sought through voluntary uplift to attract a broader middle-class
was filmed by the Edison Company,
and
ence to the moving
He
pictures.
tions. Moreover,
the audience
Law
40"Oppose
to Govern
Folks
Picture
Movies,"
New
Veto,"
41"Mayor Gaynor's
Gaynor,
42Mayor William
43Ibid.
10, 1912. See also "Plea
Plan," New York Times, May
York Times, December
17,1912.
135-36.
The Moving Picture World 15 (January 11,1913):
cited in ibid.
27,1912,
Brief, December
for Folks
Rosenbloom/ From Regulation toCensorship
383
there was
even talk about an
to the Supreme Court.44
appointment
In the long months
and Fosdick
leading up to the veto, Collier, Gaynor,
worked hard to differentiate
between
theaters
and
licensing
censoring pic
tures. This reveals just how limited a role
should
they thought government
in regulating the new medium.
longed to the myriad environmental
play
In their view, licensing the shows be
issues that progressives were commit
ted to solving and that included tenement reform, factory
safety, and sanita
tion issues. To talk about censorship and mean theater
licensing blurred the
so hard to
Collier was working
clarify. It forced him to draw a
and
sharp distinction between what he referred to as voluntary censorship
some
or
named
or
what
contemporaries
political
pre-publicity
censorship
more
reformers
called
restraint.
legal-minded
prior
Voluntary
censorship
distinctions
and
theater
scheme and
licensing worked
together in Collier's
to undermine
all efforts at a legal, political, or pre-publicity
sought
ship.
Collier's
to clarify how motion
pictures differed
leisure led him to emphasize
their essential
efforts
of commercial
together
censor
from other
forms
as a form
identity
most of the public
of publication.
For nearly two years, Collier fashioned
statements
to defend the
Board of Censorship
coming from the National
as a democratic
of moving
moving
pictures
expression. His championing
an
invitation
pictures resonated with Frederic Howe, who in 1912 accepted
to assume
Chairman
tion with
Soon
the positions of Managing Director
of the People's
Institute and
the National
came to this
Board of Censorship. Howe
posi
in law, politics,
reform.
experience
journalism, and municipal
of
after he assumed
the position of executive director of the National
about First Amendment
of moving
Board, discussions
protection
pictures
were infused
with
dramatic
and
divisive
free speech
implicidy
potentially
issues
that developed
from radical and working-class
politics and included
such varied actions as parades and birth control. Howe
the mo
defended
tion pictures on the basis of a developing
free speech theory that could be
the National Board
endorsement,
applied to moving
pictures. With Howe's
promoted
moving
the white
notably
that the medium
that depicted
social and political
issues, most
pictures
slave trade. This strategy further enhanced
the argument
should be protected by the first amendment.
Discouraged
to work to protect the
by the cleavages among reformers, Collier continued
of
movie
and
theater
to accept official
audiences
workers
but
refused
safety
as the
prior censorship
price for regulation.
To
this end, Collier partnered with Sonya Levien, a 1908
graduate of New
York University Law School and member
of the New York State Bar Asso
"The Moving
Picture World,
17 (July 9,1913):
3-5.
384
Journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
2004
c. 1909,
education
Board of Censorship.
Photo
Levien,
secretary at the National
after
from
New
Law
School
her
York
shortly
graduation
University
Reproduced
by per
mission
of The Huntington
California.
Library, San Marino,
Sonya
ciation
model
as well
as Educational
ordinance
for motion
for aModel
Ordinance
to write a
Board,
Secretary at the National
theaters.45
picture
They prepared "Suggestions
for Regulating Motion
the
Picture Theaters," which
in 1913, in an effort to shake off the numbing
effects of local political infighting and with the hope of applying the lessons
of New York politics to other cities nationwide. Drawing
from their experi
National
Board
published
at the People's
45Levien was a staff member
Institute who
also had charge of educational
as Related
for the National
to
and publicity work
Board.
See "The Story of Sonya Levien
in the Levien Manuscript
Alida S. Malkus"
Success Magazine,
Collec
January 1925, 55-57,121,
see "The Franks
tion, Huntington
1, f 2. For additional
details,
Library, Box
biographical
International
Case," Hearst's
"Hidden
Sentiment
in New
16 (December
1924): 18-19 and 107-08. See also Sonya Levien,
"
York
A copy of the published
The Survey 29 (January 11,1913).
can be seen in the
Collection,
manuscript
Sonya Levien Manuscript
Huntington
Library, Box
on this controversy,
see "New York's Motion
9. For her comments
Picture Law," The Ameri
canCity 9 (October 1913): 319-20.
Rose nbloom / From Regulation toCensorship
385
ence with
the Folks Ordinance,
they stressed the importance of a scientific
should first consider
the question
regulation. Any attempts at regulation
to
"What public need should the motion
theater
be
picture
expected
In the sentence
meet?"46
that followed
and Levien
Collier
argued
that
a form of
picture theatre is essentially
public
is licensed by the community
for public wel
fare. The same kind of scrutiny should be applied to it that
is applied to any public service monopoly,
newsstand privi
The motion
service which
lege
or
park
In the aftermath
that was
dinance
effect
in August
mechanism
for
concession.47
an or
of Gaynor's veto, the Board of Aldermen
passed
to the
similar
Folks
Ordinance.
remarkably
original
Taking
a
1913 towards the end of Gaynor's
term, it provided
licensing theaters. Theater
1, 1914, when it transferred
until May
to the License
partment
good
Bureau
and made
were
already granted
jurisdiction from the police de
theater size the defining feature
licenses
for paying a license fee and satisfying the building code. Collier and Levien
insisted on local rather than state regulations of the shows, with several ex
most
to the safety of
which
ceptions
specifically pertaining
projectionists,
they though best protected by state legislation.
in language based on First Amendment
Gaynor's defense of the medium
an
pictures had developed
identity
principles clarified how quickly moving
a
earlier.
the
arcades
of
less
than
decade
vaudeville
and
from
penny
separate
as a group
moving
picture audience, defined
by
in the form of prior re
the price of admission, needed special protection
the potential of linking film censorship with
straint, his rhetoric exposed
When
a
he asked whether
and children work
types of legislation that aimed to protect women
ers. This possibility
the arguments made by Collier, Levien,
confused
and
as
a
at
who
the People's
Institute
towards licensing
their friends
worked
other
mechanism
ter workers
from an unsafe
of protection
and audience
theater environment
for the thea
but adamandy opposed censorship. Still, Gaynor's
most
immediate impact was on the new managing
director of the People's
director of the National
Board of Censorship,
Institute
and executive
the concept of free speech for the moving
Howe, who popularized
pictures
in his many
46National
Theatres
articles.48 By
Board
(New York,
4?Ibid.
48Frederic
Outlook
stressing
of Censorship,
n.d.), 2.
"What
Howe,
107 (June 20, 1914):
to Do
412-16.
its points
Suggestions for
with
aModel
the Motion
See also Report
of comparison
to the press,
Ordinance for Regulating Motion
Picture
Show:
of theNational
Shall
Board
Picture
it be Censored?"
of Censorship
ofMo
386
journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
Howe
further enhanced
ground
between
the role of
the masses
and
2004
common
in portraying
a
that New York
challenge
the medium
the classes,
cultures were
Exacdy
already struggling to accommodate.
City's political
of the moving
where Mayor Gaynor would have taken his championship
died unexpectedly
in
1913 Mayor Gaynor
pictures is unclear. In October
his loss,
of a heated reelection
the middle
campaign.49 Many mourned
them Stephen Bush of theMoving Picture World, who memorialized
the democratic value of moving pictures.50
for recognizing
Gaynor
and Sonya Levien all played
Mayor Gaynor, John Collier, Frederic Howe,
the idea that moving pictures should be protected
central roles in defending
among
and in advocating
reforms that would make
the
by the First Amendment
to bodily harm from fire, disease, and similar physi
theaters less vulnerable
cal threats. Model ordinances were introduced in other cities; campaigns for
in New York as elsewhere.
continued
Still, even
prior censorship
over
the regulation of moving
pictures reflected partisan
though debate
veto
Hall
and
Tammany
specifically, Mayor Gaynor's
politics
generally
official
in New York to efforts in other municipalities
linked what was happening
and states to censor the moving pictures. If at first the uplift of moving
pic
1909 and 1913, offered a vehicle for discus
tures, as itwas called between
sion
between
progressive
reformers,
officers
corporate
of
the Motion
Pic
exhibitors chasing the nickels of
and neighborhood
Company,
its patrons, in the final analysis the language of censorship proved divisive.
was rooted not so much
The most
striking division between 1909 and 1913
in class as in politics.
ture Patents
*
*
*
In a dramatic
scene at the climax of D.W.
1916 feature
Griffith's
film In
tolerance, an innocent man was given a reprieve from a death sentence by the
Charles S.
When New York's Governor
governor.51 Justice had prevailed.
vetoed legislation to establish state censorship of moving pictures
on May 15, 1916, Griffith,
like his hero in the film rejoiced. Griffith's views
on censorship were well known. Incensed by the furor caused by his film
at the National Board
Birth of aNation
closely with those
(1915), he worked
a
Board of Review), which
of Censorship
argued for
(renamed National
Whitman
Hon Pictures
1913).
(New York,
49See Edwin
Lewinson,
John Purroj Mitchel,
Boy Mayor
of New
York
(New York,
1965),
89
98.
50W Stephen
1368.
51For
glyph
and
Bush,
"A Tribute
to Gaynor,"
Moving
Picture World
17 (September
27,
1913):
"The Hiero
Hansen,
film, see Miriam
analysis of this complicated
interesting
88 (1989): 361-92
D. W Griffith's
the Whore:
Intolerance," The South Atlantic Quarterly
an
Rosenbloom / From Regulation toCensorship
387
free screen despite the disturbing
images in that film and the sentiments
The
and
around Birth of aNation
demonstrations
boycotts
they promoted.
a
the film
free screen.52 Although
of
revealed the strengths and weaknesses
reformers at the National Board,
controversy
among progressive
provoked
after several reviews the Board's official policy was to continue to support a
free screen. Frederic Howe did not agree with this position but maintained
of Im
that his departure in 1915 to assume the position of Commissioner
at Ellis Island had already been decided before the crisis raised by
migration
at the National
discussion
Board
over whether
to leave uncensored
the of
a
in Birth of a Nation. Griffith,
however, maintained
to
its anti
and helped
the Board
coordinate
with
close relationship
in
His
the
New
York
and
elsewhere
in
country.
pam
lobbying
censorship
a satirical
which presented
in
and
Fall
Free
The
Rise
America,
of
Speech
phlet
fensive
racist
scenes
was
of the impact of the debate on moving
pictures,
Board of Review in its campaign inNew York.53
veto of the Cristman Bill, sponsored
Governor Whitman's
analysis
National
Franklin
which
Cristman,
would
have
established
resembled
used by the
by Senator
com
a state
censorship
veto of the Folks Ordi
mission,
Mayor Gaynor's
superficially
acts in the face of pressure
nance over three years earlier. Their courageous
from moral reformers made them out to be saviors of the film industry. Yet
while Gaynor eagerly supported a new system of licensing theaters in order
to protect patrons and projectionists
from fire, Whitman
just as enthusiasti
a
more
effective
taxing of the industry.
cally eyed the fiscal potential from
a
veto provided
reprieve for
deeply appreciated
though Whitman's
for
the
New
York as
the film industry, widespread
support
legislation in
in the governor's veto message
heralded a seri
well as the choice of words
on the basis of extending
ous warning
for those who opposed
censorship
Even
only were they fight
but also against the
Court that supported the
to moving
pictures. Not
protection
crusaders in their own state legislature,
First Amendment
ing against
unanimous
position of the United States Supreme
identification of the moving pictures as commerce,
not publication. By 1916
had carried so much prom
the Gaynor veto of the Folks Ordinance, which
ise for elevating the status of moving pictures as an expression of ideas with
status among other forms of commercial
leisure, carried litde
privileged
own state.
weight in Gaynor's
52For a discussion
DeGrazia
and Roger
York,
1982).
53"The Rise
McGuire
and
to Griffith,
and Manuscripts
of
the history of the controversy
Banned Films: Movies,
Newman,
Fall
May
Division,
of
Free Speech
8, 1916, National
New York Public
around
Censors
see Edward
Birth of aNation,
and the First Amendment
(New
in America,"
in
McGuire
requested
by WG.
Board of Review
Box 28, Rare Books
Records,
Library.
388
journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
2004
success
The
of the Cristman Bill in the New York Assembly
reflected
how adept crusaders against the moving pictures were becoming
in organiz
concerns
in city halls, state legislatures, and Congress.
State cen
ing their
had
in
In re
and
Ohio.
Kansas,
sorship legislation
passed
Pennsylvania,
film company located
sponse to this flurry of bills, in 1913 an independent
in the Midwest,
Mutual Film Corporation,
initiated a lawsuit to prevent
Ohio
and Kansas
from censoring moving
pictures. The case reached the
U.S. Supreme Court, and the decision inMutual v. Ohio, published
in Febru
the constitutionality
of state censorship
and upheld
ary 1915, established
the constitutionality
of
the Ohio
and Kansas
laws. Justice
Joseph
as
a
McKenna's
words
located the exhibition of moving
business
pictures
a
"pure and simple" with
capacity for evil that justified the state in acting to
protect its citizens.54
The "capacity for evil" doctrine acted as a lightning rod for Protestant
as
conservatives
who,
they had in New York City several years earlier,
looked for increased government
control of the screen. Unlike
the crusade
for a prohibition
amendment
that often pitted Protestant
against Catholic,
in New York state in 1916 created an alli
the campaign for film censorship
ance
between
Catholic
and
Protestant
conservative
educators
who
de
the threat of moving
pictures in themes of sacrilege, birth control,
Sheafe Chase of New York's Christ Episco
and abortion.55 Canon William
as he had since 1909, and he found new
Church
leadership
pal
provided
across the
dioceses
in Albany
and elsewhere
from
the
Catholic
support
scribed
had begun for Chase as a municipal
crusade would now be
taken to the state and national legislative bodies.
the motion
Within
this general environment,
censorship
politicized
pic
ture industry as no other issue. In New York,
the efforts of the National
state.56 What
of the Mutual
discussion
case, see Garth
Historical Journal
Court Mutual Decision,"
Supreme
in part on the threat
(1989): 59-78. Jowett bases his argument
urban values epitomized
values of America
by non-Protestant,
54For a historical
The
1915
case can be found
in John Wertheimer,
legal review of the
in
Free
and
America,"
Movies,
Progressive
Speech
Censorship,
for Evil':
'"A Capacity
Jowett,
of Film, Radio, and Television 9
to the core Protestant
posed
by the
"Mutual
new medium.
Film
The American
The
Reviewed:
journal
best
The
of Legal
History VI (1993): 156-89.
55 See
Main
the discussion
in Francis G. Couvares,
Street, and the Church:
"Hollywood,
44 (1992):
to Censor
the Production
Before
the Movies
Code," American Quarterly
Trying
Picture Industry
Frank Walsh,
Sin and Censorship: The Catholic Church and theMotion
584-616;
areMy Children?
Conn.,
1916), a
(Universal,
1996), 10-15; and the film Where
(New Haven,
at the Library of Congress,
in the Motion
Picture Division
copy of which may be found
DC.
Washington,
56For more
tant crusader
on
the relationship
between
the moving
pictures,
against
clear
ch. 1, where
it becomes
sorship, esp.
vided the locus of
activity within
Canon
and
the Catholic
Crafts, another Protes
see Walsh,
Sin and Cen
Church,
1917 the local parish or bishop
pro
screen content.
for protest
against
Chase
the Catholic
that before
Church
and Wilbur
Rosenbloom / From Regulation toCensorship
389
in organizing
the initial protests against a state censor
of Censorship
as 1911
Sonya Levien had spoken be
ship had been instrumental. As early
in her capacity as educational
fore legislative committees
against censorship
Board
she left the Board in 1913, her po
secretary at the National Board.57 When
sition was formally redefined and eventually
filled by Jacob Binder, a De
one
fund-raiser.
After
and
mocrat,
Board,
year with the National
lobbyist,
Binder helped organize the Motion Picture Board of Trade, a trade associa
first task was to lobby against cen
secretary, Binder's
as well as in
were
Binder
sorship in states where bills
pending
Washington.
went to Albany several times in the spring of 1916 to lobby against different
tion. As
its executive
of the state censorship bill. Unlike Collier, Howe,
and Levien who
had claimed to represent a broad American
public opinion, Binder boldly
affirmed that he represented
the interests of the motion
picture industry,
versions
albeit interests
At
that sometimes
conflicted.
the time that the Cristman
Bill passed,
there was
litde cohesiveness
the industry itself. Adolph
Zukor, Jesse Lasky, William
Fox, and
Lewis Selznick had displaced corporate officers of the Motion
Picture Pat
as the industry's most
ents Company
To
the public
powerful
spokesmen.
the upward mobility
of the Eastern European
eye they represented
Jewish
within
immigrant in America,
although in temperament and business practices they
to distribute
differed from each other.58 Zukor and Lasky used Paramount
their films. Neither
liked the idea of censorship, but by 1916 they had con
was
to either the
cluded that a Federal Regulatory Commission
preferable
or
state or local
censorship of the National Board
legislation by
The
National Board, dominated by progressives who had litde
government.
in common with the moral crusaders, had provoked
too much controversy
voluntary
and had failed
to stem
the tide of criticism.
State
legislation would be far
too cosdy and confusing. Paramount's
attorney argued first in hearings in
a Federal Commission
and
in
then
that
had the advan
Washington
Albany
a
and regular supervision
and that its establishment
tage of
predictable
would eliminate the need for extended and cosdy political fights from state
to
state.59
57Libbian
"The Story of Sonya Levien,"
The American Hebrew 3 (June 19, 1924):
Benedict,
"The Story of Sonya Levien,"
in the Sonya
207, and Alida Malkus,
1925, both
January
see Levien
Levien Manuscript
Collection,
Huntington
Library, Box 1. On her responsibilities,
to Collier, October
Levien Collection,
Box 4.
24,1913,
58For a general discussion
see Richard Koszarski,
in filmmaking,
about changes
An Eve
63-80. See also Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How
the jews Invented
nings Entertainment,
see his
1988). For further insight into Selznick's
(New York,
politics,
exchange with
November
Indiana State Archives,
10, 1921, in the Hays Manuscript
Collection,
Box 14.
Indianapolis,
Hollywood
Will Hays,
59Statement
(Washington:
inHearings
Government
Before the Committee
Printing
Office,
onEducation,
1916, Reprint,
House
Arno
of Representatives 64th Congress
Press,
1978), 262-64.
Journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
390
2004
H. Ince (left) and director
and director Thomas
(center), with producer
Jesse L. Lasky
at the Lasky Studios, Hollywood,
1917. From
the collections
Cecil B. DeMille
(right),
Center
for Film and Theater Research, Madison.
of theWisconsin
by per
Reprinted
mission.
of censorship, Zukor's opinion contrasted
sharply with
to the
its commitment
position of the National Board and
On
the question
the progressive
of free
principle
speech. His
differences
the National
with
were
Board
and the escalating conflict
complicated
by his staunchly anti-union position
Federation
of Labor,
of the American
President
with Samuel Gompers,
who
had
sent
an
west
organizer
to
help
sponse, Zukor had helped establish the Motion
to promote
the "welfare of
tion in California
for
the advancement
of
the interests
of
studio
unionize
Picture
Producers
the individual
re
In
workers.
Associa
producer
and
the motion
industry."60
picture
of mov
labor
leaders,
censorship
strongly opposed
Gompers,
or municipal
and had sent an AFL
ordinance,
ing pictures by state, federal,
If Zukor's
to Albany
to testify against moving
picture censorship.
delegate
among
other
on censorship
reflected the tension between him and Gompers,
can only be understood
in the context of the changing
Gompers'
position
labor's
formulation of the doctrine of free speech as it related to organized
struggles and its general support of freedom of expression.61
position
of theMotion Picture Producers Association,
of theAssociation
Archives
of Southern
California,
Collection,
University
60.
See also Ross, Working Class Hollywood,
^See Articles
the Hal
Arts.
61For
Roach
example,
see the
petitions
submitted
by Globe
Central
Labor
January 24, 1916, in
of the Performing
Council,
Globe,
Ari
Rosenbloom / From Regulation toCensorship
Zukor
and Lasky
federal
391
had changed their minds
about contesting
the idea of
a
between
1914, when
censorship bill had been intro
censorship
a similar bill was intro
in Congress
and the spring of 1916, when
duced.62 Both bills, sponsored by Georgia Democrats
Senator Hoke Smith
and Representative
had
wide
the
support within
Dudley Hughes,
enjoyed
duced
House
Ed
Significandy, New York Republican
Congressman
fellow
Frederick
from
Massachu
joined
Republican
Dallinger
setts in writing a minority
federal censorship
and built
report that opposed
on Mayor
a
The
defense.
articulated
Gaynor's
Dallinger Report
principled
as an unconstitutional
to
film
of
limitation
freedom
opposition
censorship
mund
and Senate.
Piatt
of expression.63 Published
after Governor Whitman's
veto,
a federal commission
to
the
creation
of
that
jected
impinged
the report ob
upon the local
evidence
that "a wide
power "hitherto reserved to states" without
state and local authorities were "unable to
spread evil" existed with which
on
This
the theme of protective
class legislation
report picked up
cope."64
police
and criticized
mass
the idea that a federal
of the American
less "limited means"
ful of
commission
might restrict "the great
same
the
people"
seeing
things that those of
see
as
could
theaters."65 Fear
patrons of "high-priced
from
the long-term
the report warned
that
chilling effects of censorship,
in England had hindered
pre-publicity
censorship of theatrical presentations
the growth of a "great serious drama" and blamed politics and special inter
ests for censorship
in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
of films
Citing suppression
such as Battle Cry ofPeace, the report affirmed
If we keep
which
was
inmind...that
sought...to
that
the vital thing in speech
be
res trained...
was
the
and press
of
power
we shall understand more
propaganda,
clearly the impor
tance of
the
film
within
the con
bringing
moving-picture
a
a
stitutional guaranty of
free speech and
free press, be
cause the
analogy
in principle
and necessity
in the Congressional Record, April
zona, April
16,1916,
15,1916,
of the development
53: 6774. For an extended
discussion
of
is complete.66
64th Congress,
free
1st session,
see
vol.
doctrine,
speech
John
"In Retrospect:
Freedom
of Speech: Zecharaiah
Chafee
and Free-Speech
His
Wertheimer,
22 (1994): 365-77.
see Samuel
For Gompers'
tory," Reviews in American
History
position,
Government Censorship
Board
of Review
Gompers,
(New York, n.d.), in the National
Against
Box 143.
Records,
122-23.
62Jowett, Film: The Democratic Art,
63W Stephen Bush,
"Federal Censorship
isWholly
Bad,"
The Moving
Picture World
10,1916): 1853.
64Frederick
to Accompany
Dallinger,
"Minority Views,"
Report
on Education,
Motion
Picture
2, Committee
Commission,
Government
(Washington:
Printing Office, May 22,1916).
65Ibid.
Part
66Ibid, 4.
H.R.
64th
15462
Congress,
29 (June
697,
Report
1st session
392
Journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
2004
the Dallinger Report revived interest in the lofty principle of
Although
free speech, by 1916 the National
Board of Censorship was increasingly
crusaders who were
focused on legislating moral
fighting against moral
standards and prohibiting
discussion
of
sex, social hygiene, and birth
open
control as well as on proving a causal relationship between moving
pictures
and the rise in juvenile delinquency.67
In February New York City's Com
of Licenses
missioner
had asked W.G.
to create stricter standards
Censorship
low. The
films
McGuire
at the National
for the censoring
criticized most
of
Board
to fol
committees
that the Commissioner
severely included
recent
Race
The
and
all
of
the
Fox releases
Suicide',
Damaged Goods,
Spoilers,
in part to these pressures
that featured Theda Bara.68 Responding
in New
York City, the executive committee of the Board entered a period of institu
tional reassessment. They agreed to change their name from the National
to the National Board of Review in an effort to clarify
of Censorship
to censorship
to what
their opposition
but their commitment
they called
better films.69 They solicited George Eastman
in Rochester
and asked him
to pay travel and lecture costs for Mary Gray Peck and Helen Varick Bos
Board
both
prominent members
Clubs who would build support
well,
At
the same
momentum
the General
of Women's
Federation
for separate children's programming.70
that the National
Board
struggled to redefine
time
towards
of
a New
passing
York
state
bill
censorship
itself,
Fol
gained.
a failed effort,
lowing
legislators introduced the Cristman Bill which moved
towards a vote in the spring of 1916. At this point,
quickly from committee
officers at the National Board could no longer remain silent and they began
to veto the bill explaining, "If this
to urge Governor
Charles Whitman
tem of pre-judging moral
issues is begun in this State, it may logically
of freedom of speech in newspapers,
tend to suppression
literature,
theatre and on the public platform."71 Lester Scott, assistant director of
People's
Trustees
could
sys
ex
the
the
Baldwin, chairman of its Board of
Institute, and Henry DeForest
a "State
whether
the bill questioning
condemned
censorship"
other
function
than
67See Staiger, Bad Women,
68Personal Memorandum
Box
Records,
69Minutes
as a "mere
and
extravagance
a means
of
distribut
ch. 2-3.
of Lester
Scott,
February
8,
1916, National
Board
of Review
118.
of
March
the Executive
the Meeting
10, 1916, National
Committee,
118.
Box
Records,
Re
to George
Board
of Review
70William McGuire
Eastman,
June 21, 1916, National
for both Miss Peck and Miss Boswell.
letter asks for on-going
cords, Box 24. This
support
Board
of Review
of
S. Whitman,
71Letter to Hon.
Charles
19, 1916, on National
April
Board
from
of Review
Motion
Pictures
Cooper
Union
letterhead,
Library, New
in the National
York.
Board
of
Review
Box,
Miscellaneous
Papers,
Rosenbloom/ From Regulation toCensorship
393
ing political patronage."72 Scott and McGuire went directly to their political
contacts in Albany because they fumed that the Motion
Picture Board of
Trade had hurt the principle of voluntary censorship and had made unnec
enemies
associations
had previously
who
been
among
religious
McGuire
the
of
secured
the
Eastman
Kodak
support
friendly.
Company,
to
which worked
Chamber of Commerce
through the Rochester
organize
essary
protest against the legislation and send a delegation both to Albany and to
other cities to urge them to "actively oppose
the bill."73 In addition, Peck
and Boswell
traveled to Albany where they met up with others, all of whom
the governor to veto the bill.74
a
Governor Whitman,
from New York City, was convinced
Republican
was
that the bill
flawed and, rather than sign it into law with the promise
that an amendment would
follow, he made clear that the bill needed more
wanted
was concerned
that the fees proposed
precise language.75 The Governor
New York were about five times as much as in other states.76 On May
1916,
pling
for
20,
the bill on the grounds
that it involved a crip
a
tax on the industry, which would
burden on
impose
prohibitive
access
to
and limit
exhibitors
entertainment
for those of "limited
the Governor
vetoed
many
he criticized the lack of appropriate mechanisms
means."77 Moreover,
limit
we
must
"If
power and the inadequate appeal process.
ing the Regents'
have such censorship," he wrote, "it should not be established hurriedly or
an
by
imperfect
to the Hughes
federal censorship bill
out of committee
in his conclusion
that "the estab
statute." He
referred
just favorably reported
lishment of a national censorship
edly
make
any
special
legislation
of moving
in
this
State
films would
picture
for
the
same
purpose
undoubt
unneces
sary."78
In the aftermath
relationship
between
of Governor
Whitman's
the National
Board
veto
of Review
of the Cristman
Bill,
the
and the motion
picture
in subtle yet profound ways. First, Zukor,
industry changed
Lasky, and
other motion
in
picture businessmen
organized a luncheon at Delmonico's
to
to Franklin Lord,
Baldwin
Baldwin,
29, 1916, and Henry
Henry
April
National
Board of Review, Miscellaneous
Union
Papers, Cooper
Library.
to George
to McGuire,
Eastman,
May 3, 1916, and F.W Lovejoy
May 4, 1916,
Kodak Archives,
New York, Box 28.
Rochester,
72Lester
Scott
April 20,1916,
73McGuire
Eastman
to
74WD. McGuire
Board of Review Records,
Box
Blair, April 28, 1916, National
George
see W D. McGuire
24. Also
to
Box 5.
Kleine, May 3,1916,
George
1
Annual
Report of theAttorney General of the State of New York for the Year Ending December
See also Charles
"Veto Memorandum,"
31, 1916 (Albany, 1917), 195-205.
Public
S.Whitman,
1916 (Albany, 1919), 111-16.
Papers of Charles Seymour Whitman, Governor,
76Lester Scott,
"Report of the Committee
Box 118.
Records,
77Whitman, Public Papers, 111-16.
of Review
7?Ibid,
116.
on
Legislation,"
April
20,
1916, National
Board
394
journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
2004
York City on June 8, 1916, to discuss
censorship
legislation.79 Frus
trated by problems
that had plagued the Motion
Picture Board of Trade
that would
be incorporated
under the
they set about a new organization
name National
Association
of the Motion
Picture
Industry (NAMPI).80
New
a more formidable power than the Motion
Picture Board
proved
of Trade, and while its leadership cooperated with efforts of the National
it also overshadowed
Board of Review,
the New York progressive
agenda
with a more focused set of business priorities. Second, the
following week
NAMPI
Boswell
Women's
and Peck
Clubs
on record
convinced
the General
Federation
of
in New
York City to go officially
gathering
at the state and federal levels.81 The General
against censorship
thus joined the National
Federation
of
members
at their biennial
Board
of Review
in the most
vocal
fac
to support free speech for
community
moving
pictures.
Their campaign strategy in this, as other reforms, built upon educating pub
lic opinion
rather than the direct action of contemporaries
in the suffrage
tion
in the reform
of 1916, the ex
in order to keep similar legisla
hibitors targeted several political incumbents
tion from moving
forward. Of huge importance,
in the New York Republi
can
was described
as a
censorship
primary, where
"big issue," Senator
and birth control movements.
Franklin W.
Cristman
In contrast,
of Herkimer
County
in the autumn
was
defeated.82
the following winter, a
convened
so, when the Senate and Assembly
was
to
the
committee
joint
appointed
investigate
moving
picture industry
with specific regard to the kind and amount of taxes itmight be expected to
Even
the committee
pay. In its investigation,
about
five
hundred
thousand
including
average daily attendance at motion
that these figures were exaggerated
that
and
stars,
producers,
writers
litde in taxes in New
counted
people,
twenty one years of age, in
picture theaters in the state. It is likely
the committee was infuriated
because
earned
amounts
exorbitant
and
the War was
over,
cluded, the time would be right to address some of these issues.
had made
Wilson
At the very beginning of 1916, Woodrow
79Luncheon
80Ligon
ministrative
81
Betty
and
File, Motion
of
Conference
Picture
the Motion
Censorship,
to C.H. Wilson,
Johnson
June
Box 3.
Files, Edison Archives,
Shannon,
"Women
in New
throughout
to plague projectionists
and audiences.
that the First World War
conceded
committee
City
the investigative
However,
made
it difficult to initiate a state tax. When
Document
very
paid
the state and even
while
York,
fire hazards continue
York
about one million
under
Oppose
Picture
Edison
June
3,
con
clear in an
Edison
1916,
Archives.
17, 1917, Motion
Censorship,"
Industry,
they
Patents
Company
Picture World
28
Picture
The Moving
(June
Ad
17,
1916): 2014.
82"Film Men
was
part of
Firm," The Moving
the 32nd district.
Picture World,
30
(October
7, 1916):
51. Herkimer
County
Rosenbloom / From Regulation toCensorship
address before
the first and only annual dinner of the Motion
that he valued the new medium.
of Trade
395
Picture Board
I look at pictures
[he began] whether
they move or
not
sources
I
do
think
of
all
the
move,
they
deep
of happiness
and of pain, of joy and of misery
that lie be
When
whether
that surface, and I am interested chiefly in the heart
it all, for I know that there is the
that beats underneath
and
the
of all the great forces in the
pulse
machinery
neath
world.83
an
It was
extraordinary speech given in the shadow of the Supreme Court
that had classified the moving pictures as having a capacity for evil.
While
the President's
appreciation of the films of D.W. Griffith,
including
Birth of aNation, reflected an oudook tinged with racism, his support for the
decision
medium
stood
fered more
to secure motion
effort
*
to the attitudes
that Canon
Chase
had pre
of
the New
respect
and its aftermath
of the War
*
in stark contrast
York Assembly.
The "War to End All Wars"
for the power of the medium
and the industry. The
sented before
brought
picture
censorship
end
to and a renewed
increased
scrutiny
inNew York State.
*
was
the relationship between
the post-War Red Scare and mo
tion picture censorship more apparent than in New York State, where
the
on
of
the
Governor
Nathan
Miller
Bill, signed by
passage
Clayton-Lusk
May 15, 1921, established one of only two new postwar direct state censor
Nowhere
ships of moving
pictures.84 Senate Majority Leader Clayton R. Lusk, who
this
bill along with Assemblyman
Walter Clayton, had chaired
co-sponsored
the Joint Committee
of the Legislature
Seditious Activities,
Investigating
which had drafted a set of Lusk bills to control socialists, communists,
and
members
of the Industrial Workers
and 1920.85 Their
Chase
efforts
dove-tailed
and the Catholic
impact of movies
had spearheaded
83Bush,
"Motion
1916): 923-30.
^See Jowett,
85Robert
2001), 135.
A.
of the World
in the state during 1919
the goals of the Reverend Canon
had earlier focused specifically on the
with
bishops, who
on juveniles and mixed audiences.
Although
to Fox, Zukor,
and
Marcus
opposition
Lasky
Picture
Men
Greet
President,"
Film: The Democratic Art,
119.
Slayton, Empire Statesman: The Rise
The Moving
Picture World
and Redemption
of Al
Canon
Chase
Loew
for the
27
Smith
(February
(New
12,
York,
396
journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
better part of the decade, his fear and distrust of
and their industry resonated deeply with the mood
2004
men
picture
of post-war American
the motion
fear of an unregulated
and increasingly powerful
industry, per
ceived as dominated
of
the context
birth,
many
by Jews,
foreign
provided
for the passage of the bill. The creation of a state censorship commission
in
ism. The
New
York
National
also reflected
Association
of Women's
regarded
the weaknesses
the Motion
at the National
liberal reformers
tion
of
Clubs
to exert
in the censorship
committee
of the
Picture
Board
Industry and the inability of
of Review and the General Federa
sufficient
as offensive
to prevent what
they
to repeal the bill the fol
influence
a move
legislation. Despite
when
E. Smith replaced Nathan Miller at the Governor's
Alfred
lowing year
remained in effect in New York State
Mansion, moving
picture censorship
until
1965.86
In the spring of 1921 state censorship bills were introduced
in almost a
dozen states, including New York, Massachusetts,
Virginia, and Florida. Of
York and Virginia?passed
the state legislatures
these bills, only two?New
and were signed into law. Three factors help explain why Governor Miller
a bill in 1921 so similar to the one that Governor Whitman
had ve
signed
the moving picture censorship
toed in 1916. First, the relationship between
was
At
the
of narrative film-making,
and temperance
complex.
beginning
there had been
an effort on
evils of drink. D.W.
Griffith's
to depict the
the part of some movie makers
A Drunkards Reformation (1909) had struck a
of the first censoring committee of the Board
positive note with members
substitute
Collier's idea that moving
of Censorship. Despite
pictures might
not
as
a
center of neighborhood
for the saloon
life, he had
supported tem
in 1919 and
perance legislation. After the ratification of the 18th amendment
at
the
National
the passage of the Volstead
Act, progressive
leadership
to the mentality
Board of Review expressed more strongly their opposition
that had triumphed in this legislation. The uneasy truce be
of repression
and those who
tween those who opposed motion
sup
picture censorship
into enmity. The Anti-Saloon
temperance had been transformed
ported
to censor the
reformers were now well posed to help those who wanted
of mem
officers suggested seeking the cooperation
movies. When NAMPI
bers of the Anti-Saloon
League and other temperance groups in fighting
W.
G.
McGuire
responded
censorship,
This was
mind was
86For a brief
review
too much
the very element whose
in favor of censorship?that
of
the 1951 Miracle
how
case,
following
at
http://www.archives.nysed.gov/holding/.
are
type of
repression
it
and the limitations
upon
placed
operated
in
York
New
"Film
State,"
Andress,
Censorship
the commission
see Richard
they
natural
Rose nbloom / From Regulation toCensorship
397
ists by nature
in the fight
and to seek their cooperation
to
is like attempting
engage Satan for
censorship
against
the distribution
of Holy Water.87
consensus
among club women
challenged Mary Gray Peck
war
as
she struggled to lobby against state cen
the post
years
throughout
as elsewhere.
1919, Peck lobbied but re
sorship in New York
Throughout
lack of
A
In a report
that supported censorship.
some of
late in 1919, she highlighted
the divisions
there that shed light on a similar situation in New York and
the Film Club, the State Teachers Federation,
and Christian
elsewhere. With
back about powerful factions
a
summarizing
trip to Massachusetts
ported
the work of "the State Federation
of
supporting censorship,
and local League
Women's
Trade Union
of
Clubs, Women's
League,
to state censorship was made
in opposition
Voters
Women
increasingly
to tour the country, but
1919 and 1921, Peck continued
difficult.88 Between
ScienceMonitor
she spent more
time promoting
the concept of the selection of programs
criticism of the moving
for children and mixed audiences and constructive
for the mov
than arguing in favor of First Amendment
protection
ing pictures.89 In this way, Peck sacrificed the complexity of the free speech
argument in favor of the pragmatic goal of increasing supervision over chil
pictures
dren's
programs.
a third factor that
ex
Clayton R. Lusk's own popularity presents
helps
plain the political context of 1921. In April 1920 the New York Assembly
had voted to expel five Socialists, a vote that reflected urban-rural dynamics
within
the
had been
state.
In
the
affiliated with
Review?were
following
months
the People's
by the Lusk
some
others?undoubtedly
Institute
and the National
who
Board
of
as Governor
committee.
targeted
Although
to defuse emotions
stood up to Lusk and attempted
running high at
the peak of the Red Scare, he lost re-election
in the fall of 1920 to Republi
Smith
can Nathan
Miller's
censorship
a
Miller,
election
corporate
and Lusk's
attorney.90
popularity affected
two
in
distinct ways. First, there was
the momentum
no natural
for state
friend
for the
87On the evolving
between
the Anti-Saloon
and
workers,
relationship
temperance
League,
see Executive
of
National
Board
Director,
opposed
moving
picture
censorship,
to D.W Griffith,
Board of Review Records,
Box 28. For
Review,
14,1919, National
February
more
on women's
context
see Alison
but a different
activism,
Parker, Purifying
perspective
America: Women, Cultural Rsform and Pro-censorship Activism,
1873-1933
(Urbana,
1997), 134-44.
those who
of the National
Committee
Board
88Report of Mary Gray Peck to the Executive
Board of Review Records,
Box 118.
view, December
18,1919, National
on State
89On Peck's
Situation
travels, see Mary Gray Peck, "Report
Censorship
National
of
Board
Review
Box 118.
Records,
ginia," January 27,1920,
90Slayton, Empire
Statesman,
148.
of Re
in Vir
398
Journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
2004
in Albany.
Scott and William
Second, Lester
picture business
to bring pressure to bear on Governor Whit
McGuire, who had managed
were
of status of the National Board of Review.
undercut
the
loss
man,
by
motion
the NAMPI
Only
had the capability of mobilizing
the
bill in front of the Assembly
against
were
officers
vulnerable
themselves
lobbying
NAMPI's
Americanism
licWelfare
cal of
in the prevailing
Council
(NCWC),
picture
of social hygiene
Board of Review
NCWC
emerged
Committee
not
only
over
the films Fit
of
the National
Catho
1919, was very criti
Board of Review's
with
confrontation
to Win
in 1919. The
late
a formidable
the
and End
of the Road,
Motion
Picture
NCWC
to the National
enemy
that distributed
organization
un
accusations
political
films. In a head-to-head
victorious
proved
as a national
to
climate. Finally,
in September
organized
and
the National
of
industry
the motion
support
National
opinion and effectively
and the Governor.
But
of Review
Board
its own
bulletin,
but
a strategy of
blacklisting.91
through
The shift in political and social context
in the post-war years helps to ex
plain the passage of the law in New York State. It took only three months
first introduced
the bill on
Walter Clayton
from the time Assemblyman
to be signed.92 During
this time the Confer
February 15, 1921 for the bill
ence of Mayors,
and organized
Samuel Gompers
of the organized motion
and much
of Review,
the governor decided
against the bill. Reportedly,
labor, the National
Board
lobbied
picture industry
to support the bill after it
was amended on March 3, 1921, and then sponsored
in the Upper House
for March
scheduled
Lusk.
Leader
originally
Clayton
Hearings
by Majority
were adjourned until April 6. At that time, the Conference
de
of Mayors
as it had
state censorship
their support
proclaimed
nounced
that
it made
most
sense
in 1916, and the mayors
energetically
Board of Review on the grounds
of the National
to
or an educational
classify
motion
pictures
as an
art
rather
than
as a
business
labor, in the figure of
Organized
also rallied
of Samuel Gompers,
Peter Franey, the personal representative
in
he
is
interested
commented,
many directions,"
against the bill. "Labor
movement.93
that
in legislation such as this."94 He explained
censor
and
that
entertainment
affordable
family
moving
pictures provided
of raising family prices.
affect
have
the
would
fees
invariably
ship
of the mayors,
To the consternation
labor, and the producers,
organized
"but we
are not
interested
91
Sin and Censorship, 18-22.
Walsh,
The Motion Picture Problem
92Charles Lathrop,
Social Service,
1922), 49-50.
(New York:
Commission
on
the Church
Administrative
in the Senate Chamber,
93See the typescript of April 6, 1921, hearing
Picture Records, New York State Archives,
Albany.
ject File, Motion
in the Senate Chamber,
ibid., 17.
April 6,1921,
94Franey, typescript of testimony
and
Sub
Rosenbloom / From Regulation toCensorship
majority
supported the bill and sent it to the
April 7. Between April 7 and April 12 there was
debate. After the Republican majority in the Assembly
passed
to the governor
went
for his approval, the motion
picture
the Republican
the whole on
399
committee
more
of
heated
the bill, and it
industry again
a veto.
for Famous Players' Lasky ex
Attorneys
the company
pressed concern that if the censorship bill passed in Albany,
face enormous
fees on their accumulated
would
Their
attorney,
inventory.
H.D. Connick, objected especially to section 12 of the legislation because
worked
hard
to secure
he argued that the New York Censorship
bill would impinge on the foreign
1921 Famous Players boasted it did about 20 to 25 percent of its
trade?in
business
abroad. Customarily,
he explained,
after a picture is made,
it is
to the trade
to a salesroom where
in other words
"this
showing,
want
to
of
sit"
and
decide
what
for
their
group
foreigners
they
purchase
own markets.
Connick
the state of New York was
concluded,
therefore,
taken
to censor for the entire world.95 Furthermore,
he promised
that
presuming
own
the industry would clean its
house. Within
the week, he said, the film
industries would
Institute.
business
be "bound
together" along the lines of the Iron and Steel
over
Previous
stars, sites, and other component
parts of
fights
were
that had prevented
association
any meaningful
being put
to combat the
censorship bills currendy
inWashington
and in Albany.96
The indication that a new industry-wide organization
aside in order
under
consideration
was
being contem
over
to
was
on the
the
toll
the
plated pointed
struggle
censorship
taking
an
to
NAMPI.
Under pressure
in Al
organize
anti-censorship
campaign
a far more effective role in
NAMPI
than
its
bany,
played
lobbying
prede
cessor,
the Motion
Picture Board
it still failed. Gabriel
member
Board
of Trade, had done five years earlier, but
executive director of NAMPI
and an influential
Hess,
of the joint censorship committee of the NAMPI
and the National
of Review,
lobbied in Albany, where he discredited
al
censorship
as frivolous and
He ar
ready in effect in other states
politically motivated.
scenes
a
in
that
for example,
of
gued
Pennsylvania,
boy thumbing his nose
had to be removed from a film adapted from a Booth
story, as
Tarkington
son
on
did a scene of a mother
his bare bottom
since Penn
spanking her
this indecent exposure. Ohio prevented
sylvania censors considered
one
on
several
the steel strike in Ohio and another
newsreels,
ing
show
on
the
coal strike in Pennsylvania. Even a 1916 newsreel
showing Pancho Villa was
was
a
in
Ohio
because
he
deemed
bandit.
To support his posi
prohibited
tion, Hess entered into the record an argument by pioneer
juvenile justice
95H.D. Connick,
of
typescript
Administrative
Subject File, Motion
%Ibid.
before
testimony
Picture Records,
the Governor
New
York
of New York,
State Archives.
n.d.,
8-16,
400
Journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
reformer
Judge Ben Lindsey. Defending
If we
movies
2004
had argued:
Lindsey
tell the truth itwill be found
then is not with
the
erature,
that the greatest trouble
the automobiles,
the lurid lit
the movies,
ble mosdy with
it not with
ourselves?
our
rotten
the
weed,
nasty
This
failures
Is not
booze.
the
trou
we live? Is
society in which
and
in homes,
schools,
churches?...97
As
had
as 1919 NAMPI's
early
crafted
resolutions
aimed
committee under Hess's direction
censorship
at a trade
that in effect would
censorship
reviews done by the National Board of Review. This was a
than any up to this point and suggested
of
promise
self-censorship
as too restrictive
Board of Review
by the National
blacklisting. Opposed
have
superceded
bolder
on
and acquiescent
vised, and members
the principle of censorship,
these resolutions were re
of the industry deferred to the judgment of the Na
in 1921, with passage of the New York law immi
tional Board.98 However,
a
by
again brought forward the idea of self-censorship
a decade
broke
with
of
NAMPI's
advocacy
self-regulation
Board of
had
relied on the National
the
industry
whereby
once
nent, NAMPI
trade association.
of precedent
and its successor,
Censorship
by
which
to
films.
preview
In
the Board
of Review,
the meantime,
executive
old-timer W.G.
of Review,
the argument
tional Board
to establish
of
officers
McGuire,
standards
the Na
tried their best
including
a decade, namely that voluntary
they had made for
for control of the pictures than legal cen
action was a superior mechanism
executive
of
Charles Lathrop,
had
the
secretary of
support
sorship. They
Social Service of the Protestant
of Christian
the Department
Episcopal
on the Church and Social Service,
for the Commission
Church. Writing
a
Problem inwhich
lengthy discussion of theMotion Picture
Lathrop presented
Board and voluntary
that the National
he concluded
through
censorship
to sustain
selection
remained
for the state to follow.99 His
the best model
systematic approach notwithstanding,
trast to the more emotional diatribes
from
the
within
presented
opinion stood
by Canon Chase. Challenges
were
new.
Lathrop's
churches
Protestant
logic and
in stark con
not
However,
when
repre
sentatives of the Catholic clergy in New York criticized the efficacy of the
Board as they had done earlier in Chicago, Canon Chase found a
National
97Gabriel Hess
testimony,
98See the Memorandum
Board
of Review
tional Board
"Lathrop,
Records,
ibid., 25.
on Resolutions
Box
Adopted
9. See also
of Review, May-June,
1919, Box
Motion Picture Problem.
"Report
120.
Association,
by National
to the General
Committee
n.d. National
of
the Na
Rosenbloom / From Regulation toCensorship
ally in the struggle
powerful
of
concept
The
were
voluntary
to discredit
both
the National
Board
401
and its
censorship.100
arguments offered in support of the legislation before the Governor
former deputy Police Commissioner
emotional. Mrs. Kate O'Grady,
of New
York
expressed hostility towards the moving
pictures which
on the Lower East
for juvenile delinquency
she held responsible
especially
the
Catholic
in
New
York State and a
while
Side,
presentations
by
bishops
City,
of Buffalo
committee
citizens represented by prominent
attorney and for
for the Western
States Attorney
District
of New York John
Lord O'Brian,
claimed that boys learned about robbery, the use of chloro
immoral activities
from the moving
form, suicide, and other
pictures.
mer
United
introduced
a new
emphasis, however, when he joined his testimony
to the debates over Americanism.
juvenile delinquency
During World
War
in the United
States Justice Department
and
I, O'Brian had worked
had devised plans for alien internment and passport control. Now
he ac
O'Brian
about
cused
the moving
towards national de
tendencies
pictures of accelerating
no
that
have
"the
of the meaning
generation claiming
producers
conception
as
to
of the word 'American,'
standards of conduct."101
applied
chose to respond on the issue of
of NAMPI,
Brady, President
He began by saying that he represented 90 percent of Ameri
Americanism.
can
to detail his loyal and
producers. He then proceeded
patriotic service to
William
in response to President Wilson's
request,
during the war when,
he joined the efforts to provide entertainment
and training films to the
to deny in the Senate
American Army. Finally, Brady judged it appropriate
the nation
what was believed to be the evil at the root of the moving
pic
ture business. Making clear a connection
that was implied but had not been
made explicit by the Catholic clergy, Brady testified
Chambers
I deny what has been stated in the most of it. I
deny the
a whole.
as
and
the
seriousness
the
[of
obscenity
problem]
I am going to say to you that ninety per cent of the
people
are interested
are Christians,
who
in the business
not
Jews.102
a more
of
the Catholic
discussion
the National
systematic
position
regarding
see Walsh,
of Review,
Sin and Censorship, 10-22.
in Senate Chambers,
101O'Brian's Summary
Statement
Picture Records,
n.d., 1-5, Motion
Administrative
O'Brian
had to leave before his testi
Subject File, New York State Archives.
in front of the Governor.
For this reason he submitted
a brief
that he had prepared
mony
for the Senate
from others
For testimony
in support of the bill, see
of
hearings.
Typescript
ioopor
Board
Testimony
New York
the Governor,
before
State Archives.
102Typescript,
by Brady,
n.d.,
54-61, Administrative
1-3, Administrative
Subject
Subject
File, Motion
File, Motion
Picture
Records,
Picture
Records,
402
journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
2004
the energetic
efforts of the National
Board of Review
and
on
Governor
Miller
bill
the
NAMPI,
May 15, declaring censorship
signed
the only way to remedy what "everyone concedes a great evil."103 The Clay
ton-Lusk Bill, took effect August
1, 1921, and created a three-person
Despite
a staff of
with
Commission
thirteen people. The New York Commission
states where censorship had been enacted be
fore the War by setting a longer term in office and a higher salary for the
fee in New York
commissioners.104 To help pay for salaries, the censorship
was also much
higher than elsewhere around the country. The first year of
differed
from
the Motion
in other
those
Commission
Picture
of
York was
the State of New
busy. Re
an
established
to the motion
the Commission
picture producers,
York City. On August
1, 1921, they began to review films, in
new
five months
of their work
they issued 1,330 licenses for
sponding
office in New
the
first
films.105
the bulk of elimination,
or incite crime or
morals
corrupt
namely
language
or
were considered
of morals appeared to be
immoral
indecent. Corruption
a film. An
reason for
the most
example of immorality
rejecting
frequent
Four
categories
scenes or
living with
how
men
a man
will
run
for
that would
two subtides
included
that accounted
emerged
from Famous
that maybe
after
a woman
Players Lasky's ImIu Belt; "You've been
to" and "Ain't it funny
you're not married
who
ain't
regular."106
later
Days
com
the
to pass Associated
First National's Hail theWoman on the
was inhuman,
incite crime.107 The
that
it
immoral, and would
grounds
von Stroheim alter Foolish Wives because
Commission
requested that Erich
mission
refused
undress.108 In
used his pocket mirror to watch Mrs. Hughes
a bank,
as
a
plac
blowing up
variety of activities such
citing crime included
a bomb on a judge's porch, drinking, stealing chickens, and organizing
ing
as well as the sacrilegious portrayal of Jews.109 In addition, the
cockfights
von
Stroheim
New
York
State Archives.
103Lathrop, Motion Picture Problem, 49-50.
Annual
Picture Commission,
104New York State Motion
Report of theMotion Picture Commis
in the Motion
Picture Commission
sion of the Year 1921 (Albany, NY,
1921), 10, typescript
the State of New York, New York State Archives.
105
Picture Commission
of the Year
Report of theMotion
New York State Archives.
of
York
New
1921,
1-2. Press
Picture Commission
106"Lulu Bett," November
23, 1921, Motion
York
Archives.
of
New
State
Films,
Register
Picture Commission
of the State of New
107Entry 1072, Motion
York
York
Typescript,
the State
of New
of
Films,
of New
York
Register
State Archives.
Motion
108Entry 1347, "Foolish Wives,"
Archives.
State
of
New
York
Films,
Register
a commissioner
109Two films that offended
sacrilegious
of
Notice,
portraits
were
This Dollar
Picture
on
Baby, Metro
of
Commission
the ground
Pictures
of
the State
inciting
Corporation,
to crime
because
and While
of
Satan
Rosenbloom / From Regulation toCensorship
commission
condemned
in many
"eliminations
"in their entirety"
five feature
films
403
and made
others."110
con
In filing their first report with
the Governor,
the commissioners
were successful
cluded that despite a number of difficulties,
in imple
they
the
of
the
law
with
the
of
the
and
exhibitors
menting
spirit
cooperation
many of the producers. Nevertheless,
they pointed out that the producers
could not agree among themselves about what is "decent or indecent, moral
or immoral, and what tends to incite to crime or not to incite to crime."111
were
the commissioners
in reporting a very
Although
genuinely positive
in the character of the films, they made clear that
substantial improvement
for
claimed
credit
this
with five months
of experi
process. Moreover,
they
ence behind
one
cluding
. .for
cense.
The
to the law, in
several amendments
them, they recommended
to
that would
the
Commission
"refuse...a
li
power
give
films
reformers
which
contain
at the National
unpatriotic
Board
or
seditious
of Review
features..
,"112
faced a variety of chal
of the New York Motion
lenge in coming to terms with the establishment
Picture Commission.
bill clarified in stark
Passage of the Clayton-Lusk
terms the Board's impotence
in insisting upon the
superiority of voluntary
an alliance between
when
faced
with
and
censorship
organized Catholic
a
conservative Protestant
churchmen
and
sympathetic governor. The New
York Motion
Picture
Commission
and the National
Board
starkly dif
ferent views
for regu
censorship entailed
responsible
screen. They disagreed most on the role women
the
lating
might play in the
on
status
the
of volunteer
and paid censors, and on the standards
process,
on what
used
by
the
held
and who was
reviewers.
Bill closed one chapter in the struggle over
Passage of the Clayton-Lusk
in New York State. As promised,
in the after
picture censorship
moving
math of the bill some of the leaders of the motion
picture industry bragged
that they would use the power of the screen to lobby in support of the re
a decade of
peal of the bill. After
struggling to keep the motion
picture out
of politics, these men knew how to lobby and were more ready than ever to
enter
into the political arena. For this reason, the
industry appeared
as a
force than as an institution
that would
threatening
political
threaten the morals of the nation. This reality led to a
proposed
investiga
tion of the motion
picture industry, which aired before the Senate Judiciary
direcdy
more
Famous
in Register
of Films,
and Any Ole
Players Lasky. See entry 2817 and 2967
Rastus
Chases Chickens, and Holding His Own, April 26 and 28-29,
Picture
1922, Motion
Rags,
Commission
of the State of New York Register
of Films.
110
1-2.
Report of theMotion Picture Commission of the Year 1921, Press Notice,
^Ibid.^.
Sleeps,
"2lbid.,6.
404
Journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
2004
on
January 25, 1922. The campaign underway in New York to
Law by using the "publicity power of the screen of
the
Clayton-Lusk
repeal
the State to elect all who agree to vote for its repeal and to defeat all candi
to do so" further antagonized
dates who refuse to promise
the committee
Committee
to investigate the industry. NAMPI's
claim before Governor
that they could clean up pictures in the state because "absolute and
unlimited power over the whole business was in the hands of four or five
that resolved
Miller
men"
to attack the industry.113
first at the Senate hearing was Canon Chase.
taken out of context
had been
and used
those testifying
Among
of his "Catechism on Mo
Chase began his testimony with the presentation
in Interstate Commerce,"
where
he raised thirteen points
tion Pictures
were called the motion
what
defined
picture interests?subsequendy
against
as NAMPI?and
William
Fox,
tacks were printed
accused the movie
litde
doubt
Semitic
out Adolph
Zukor, Jesse Lasky, Carl Laemmle,
at
Loew for investigation.114 The ad hominem
where
the
editor
in Henry Ford's Dearborn Independent,
singled
and Marcus
to
the
industry of being below
contemporary
the American
an
that
standard,
leaving
and
ethno-centric
anti
bias lay at the heart of the charges being made:
The
source
of control
of
Lewis
Abrams,
Loew, William
real names
by which
before
the
rottenness
that has been
or hindrance
Even
audience
in
the movies
exercised
over
is...in
Zukor, Carl Laemmle,
Samuel Goldwyn,
Selznick,
by Adolph
J.
Fox. These
of the men
the controllers
names
are not all of
to investigate the politics
and distributors had been made
tion picture producers
znick and Fox had approached
grade
let
Hiram
Marcus
them
the
names
designated, but they are the
are known.115
of moviedom
the resolution
the head of a National
the
them...without
Postmaster
Association
General Will
of Motion
Picture
of the leading mo
public, Zukor, Sel
Hays "to become
and Dis
Producers
excesses of sex and drugs stigmatized
tributors."116 Hollywood's
tycoons were particularly
try and came at a time when the movie
the indus
vulnerable
In
Picture
of the Motion
to "Proposed
113Senate Resolution
142, Attached
Investigation
2nd
the Committee on the Judidary of the United States Senate, 67th Congress,
dustry," Hearings Before
Government
session
1922).
Printing Office,
(Washington,
of Scrapbooks,
Films
114"Chase Wants
January
entry in the Chaney Digest
Investigated,"
Collection.
Will
373,
25, 1922,
Hays Manuscript
Dearborn
and the Pictures,"
Independent, in the Chaney Digest,
Collection.
Will
1922, 389,
Hays Manuscript
116Statement by the President
14, 1922, and Statement
[Harding], January
Box
15.
Will
and distributors,
Collection,
1922,
Hays Manuscript
January 16,
115"Mr. Hays
February
of
11,
producers
Rosenbloom / From Regulation toCensorship
to the malevolent
405
infecting American
of
this
further
national culture. Hays' acceptance
position only
antagonized
some of the industry's most virulent critics including the writer
for the
for
who
the
Cabinet
where
he
Dearborn Independent,
castigated Hays
leaving
and anti-Semitic mood
anti-immigrant
have had a better
of serving the American
opportunity
people. Re
to Judge Kenesaw Mountain
had re
the
who
Landis,
jecting
comparison
to clean up baseball, the writer indicated that Hays
cendy been appointed
had been bought off by the very
might
crowd which
ran the movies
into
the deepest
pollution
cabinet, acquired an unques
[who] went to the President's
a Presbyterian
tionable American,
elder, in fact, to do the
work of heading off. If is done it isworth a thousand times
to the movie kings, and itmeans
$150,000
character.117
lable damage to the American
*
*
incalcu
further
*
over
1909
struggle
censorship
legislation in New York State between
and 1922 highlighted
the dilemmas that the early motion
picture producers,
reformers
exhibitors
and progressive
faced in seeking protection
for the
The
screen as the locus of a democratic
potential.
pictures
Significantly,
and less hazardous
of New
legacies
art with
the articulation
York's
theaters
progressive
In a decade
twentieth
social, political, and economic
of a free speech theory for motion
the most
remain among
important
in
politics
the
that saw increased
culture
wars
freedoms
of
the
early
for women
in
century.
in
in
birth
and
economic
the
of
the
control,
passage
voting,
opportunities,
Bill suggested a hollow victory for the agents of a cultural
Clayton-Lusk
backlash against the moving
pictures. On the other hand, the failure to
art firmly protected
the progressive vision of film as a democratic
the First Amendment
into a protective
buffer between
the moving
translate
under
and
pictures
those
who
would
demonize
the
new
medium
as
the limits of
social, and religious upheaval
exposed
of
Frederic
Howe, John Collier, and those
agenda
progressives
cultural,
a
source
of
the reform
in their cir
cle.
The
legislation in New York State in 1921 presents
an
observers
knew that the movie
contemporary
anomaly. Many
picture
who
had
taken
residence
in
California
had their roots in New
up
moguls
York
passage
of censorship
City, maintained
117"Mr. Hays
and
financial
the Pictures."
relationships
with Wall
Street,
and had an
406
journal of theGildedAge and ProgressiveEra / October
2004
in the export business
through the port of New York, as well as
friends in state politics. Perhaps this power base hurt them
by giving a face
to the nameless
that
Americanism
enemy
preached against in the postwar
interest
over
years. The culture war as it developed
moving
pictures in New York
a
State presented
across the state.
within
the
urban
middle
classes
struggle
That being the case, the anti-Semitism
that had sparked the initial debates in
1908, and that contextualized
instrumental
in understanding
York than elsewhere.
The
creation
of
the New
the charges of un-Americanism
in 1921, is
more
was
acute
how much
the crisis
in New
York
the weakness
State Censorship
reflected
Commission
Democrats
in 1920. One measure
of the
of the progressive
is that Frederic Howe
reportedly burned his papers from the period
he spent at the People's
to the
Institute rather than have them exposed
seems
of
General
A.
to
Mitchell
Palmer.
scrutiny
Attorney
John Collier also
times
have disappeared
from public view, although by 1922 he had reemerged as
a
of
Indian
later have a second chance to be an
champion
rights and would
for justice as Commissioner
of Indian Affairs
and champion
of
tribal rights during the New Deal. The defeat of Al Smith and his refusal
even in 1922 to support a
measure
of the
suggest that censorship
repeal
advocate
screen
a necessary
the crusade
step towards appeasing
the self-regulation
of the industry by an
against immorality. Significandy,
and Distributors
office of the Motion
Picture Producers
that
Association
in New
York was
satisfy the forty-two
not satisfy New York.
would
other
states without
official
censorship
would
picture moguls might have preferred repeal of the
legislation in 1922, they learned to live with it and the taxes they
was censor
For
the
industry, the price of doing business inNew York
paid.
the increase in box office business, the tremendous popularity of
ship. With
con
the moving
pictures, and the building of moving
picture palaces, few
as
a
a
screen
to
decade before. The moving
talk about
free
tinued
they had
Although
New York
the motion
were
and the others
Zukor, Fox, Lasky, Loew,
big business.
to be too busy building empires to express concern about the First
Amendment.
The vision of the film as a democratic
art, bringing together
to
the progressive vision of America.
the classes and the masses, belonged
pictures
seemed
as
entided to protection
speech. As dis
were busi
McKenna's
the
that
tasteful
moving
pictures
opinion
Judge
on film at a
ness pure and
simple might have been, its insight and influence
in
decisive.
its
history proved
pivotal point
So too did the idea that film was
as