Pennsylvania State Board of Censors

Last updated

This screen was inserted into all films to be shown in Pennsylvania, each with a specific number. This one belonged to Thru Traffic (1935) and was shown as the last frame of the film. PSBoC.png
This screen was inserted into all films to be shown in Pennsylvania, each with a specific number. This one belonged to Thru Traffic (1935) and was shown as the last frame of the film.

The Pennsylvania State Board of Censors was an organization under the Pennsylvania Department of Education responsible for approving, redacting, or banning motion pictures that it considered "sacrilegious, obscene, indecent, or immoral" or might pervert morals.

Contents

Organization

The board was composed of three members, which were appointed by the Governor of Pennsylvania. Despite a censorship law passed in 1911, a lack of funding prevented it from beginning its activities until 1914. [1]

Elimination

In 1956, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled the act which created and provided for the board was unconstitutional, with respect to the Pennsylvania Constitution and so revoked the mandate for the board's existence. The Pennsylvania General Assembly re-enacted the statute in 1959, but it was struck down again in 1961 by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. [2]

This scene from The Branding Iron (1920) was cut by the Pennsylvania board, which then banned the film for its topic of infidelity. The Branding Iron (1920) - Barbara Castleton.jpg
This scene from The Branding Iron (1920) was cut by the Pennsylvania board, which then banned the film for its topic of infidelity.

See also

Related Research Articles

Prior restraint is censorship imposed, usually by a government or institution, on expression, that prohibits particular instances of expression. It is in contrast to censorship that establishes general subject matter restrictions and reviews a particular instance of expression only after the expression has taken place.

In Ireland, the state retains laws that allow for censorship, including specific laws covering films, advertisements, newspapers and magazines, as well as terrorism and pornography, among others. In the early years of the state, censorship was more widely enforced, particularly in areas that were perceived to be in contradiction of Roman Catholic dogma, including abortion, sexuality and homosexuality. The church had banned many books and theories for centuries, listed in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

The Maryland State Board of Censors was a three-member agency in the U.S. state of Maryland from 1916 to 1981. No film could be officially released in the state without the approval of the board, which granted licenses to films it found "moral and proper".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judith Krug</span> American librarian and freedom of speech proponent (1940–2009)

Judith Fingeret Krug was an American librarian, freedom of speech proponent, and critic of censorship. Krug became director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom at the American Library Association in 1967. In 1969, she joined the Freedom to Read Foundation as its executive director. Krug co-founded Banned Books Week in 1982.

In Canada, appeals by the judiciary to community standards and the public interest are the ultimate determinants of which forms of expression may legally be published, broadcast, or otherwise publicly disseminated. Other public organisations with the authority to censor include some tribunals and courts under provincial human rights laws, and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, along with self-policing associations of private corporations such as the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.

Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952), also referred to as the Miracle Decision, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that largely marked the decline of motion picture censorship in the United States. It determined that provisions of the New York Education Law that had allowed a censor to forbid the commercial showing of a motion picture film that the censor deemed "sacrilegious" were a "restraint on freedom of speech" and thereby a violation of the First Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Film censorship</span> Films that are banned in a particular country

Film censorship is carried out by various countries to differing degrees, sometimes as a result of powerful or relentless lobbying by organizations or individuals. Films that are banned in a particular country change over time.

The United States Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Samoa states that:

The law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and the government generally respected these rights in practice and did not restrict academic freedom or the Internet. In general the independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views without restriction. The law stipulates imprisonment for any journalist who refuses to reveal a confidential source despite the issuance of a court order upon request from any member of the public at large. However, there has been no court case invoking this law.

Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling by a 9–0 vote that the free speech protection of the Ohio Constitution, which was substantially similar to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, did not extend to motion pictures.

In the United States, censorship involves the suppression of speech or public communication and raises issues of freedom of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Interpretation of this fundamental freedom has varied since its enshrinement. Traditionally, the First Amendment was regarded as applying only to the Federal government, leaving the states and local communities free to censor or not. As the applicability of states rights in lawmaking vis-a-vis citizens' national rights began to wane in the wake of the Civil War, censorship by any level of government eventually came under scrutiny, but not without resistance. For example, in recent decades, censorial restraints increased during the 1950s period of widespread anti-communist sentiment, as exemplified by the hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. In Miller v. California (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court found that the First Amendment's freedom of speech does not apply to obscenity, which can, therefore, be censored. While certain forms of hate speech are legal so long as they do not turn to action or incite others to commit illegal acts, more severe forms have led to people or groups being denied marching permits or the Westboro Baptist Church being sued, although the initial adverse ruling against the latter was later overturned on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court case Snyder v. Phelps.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Education Code 48907</span>

California Education Code 48907 (1977), also known as the California Student Free Expression Law, acts as a counter to the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Supreme Court ruling, which limited the freedom of speech granted to public high school newspapers. The Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as "forums for student expression" are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established as forums for student expression. Ed Code 48907 affirms the right of high school newspapers to publish whatever they choose, so long as the content isn't explicitly obscene, libelous, or slanderous, and doesn’t incite students to violate any laws or school regulations. The newspaper content must also pass the minimal disruption test set forth in the Supreme Court ruling on Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). In contrast with Hazelwood, which limited First Amendment protection to only those high school newspapers that had, through practice or policy, been established as forums for student expression, Ed Code 48907 affirms the right of all newspapers to the freedom of expression.

Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case that ended government-operated rating boards with a decision that a rating board could only approve a film and had no power to ban a film. The ruling also concluded that a rating board must either approve a film within a reasonable time, or go to court to stop a film from being shown in theatres. Other court cases determined that television stations are federally licensed, so local rating boards have no jurisdiction over films shown on television. When the movie industry set up its own rating system—the Motion Picture Association of America—most state and local boards ceased operating.

Book censorship is the removal, suppression, or restricted circulation of literary, artistic, or educational material – of images, ideas, and information – on the grounds that these are morally or otherwise objectionable according to the standards applied by the censor. Censorship is "the regulation of speech and other forms of expression by an entrenched authority". The overall intent of censorship, in any form, is to act as "a kind of safeguard for society, typically to protect norms and values [...] censorship suppresses what is considered objectionable from a political, moral, or religious standpoint."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Film censorship in the United States</span>

Film censorship in the United States was a frequent feature of the industry almost from the beginning of the U.S. motion picture industry until the end of strong self-regulation in 1966. Court rulings in the 1950s and 1960s severely constrained government censorship, though statewide regulation lasted until at least the 1980s.

The censorship of student media in the United States is the suppression of student-run news operations' free speech by school administrative bodies, typically state schools. This consists of schools using their authority to control the funding and distribution of publications, taking down articles, and preventing distribution. Some forms of student media censorship extend to expression not funded by or under the official auspices of the school system or college.

The Virginia State Board of Censors was a government agency formed on August 1, 1922 for the purpose of reviewing and licensing films for approval to be screened in the state of Virginia. During the agency's existence its members examined over 52,000 films, over 2,000 of which required edits before approval was given; and another 157 films were rejected entirely, of which only 38 won subsequent approval. The board disbanded in 1968 following a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings which overturned censorship statutes across the country.

Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established as forums for student expression.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chicago Board of Censors</span>

The Chicago Board of Censors was a film censorship committee based in Chicago that was founded in 1907 as the Police Censor Board, and operated until 1984. It was the first film censorship board in the United States. The board had great influence over the editing and distribution of many films.

Collateral censorship is a type of censorship where the fear of legal liability is used to incentivize a private party who is acting as an intermediary to censor the speech of another private party. Examples of intermediaries include publishers, journalists, and online service providers. Regardless of the merits of the speech in question, holding intermediaries liable may induce them to censor a large amount of additional speech in an attempt to avoid liability. Also, an intermediary is likely to be more willing to censor than the original speaker would be, since it is not as invested in promoting the speech in question.

Holmby Productions, Inc. v. Vaughn, 177 Kan. 728 (1955), 282 P.2d 412, is a Kansas Supreme Court case in which the Kansas State Board of Review, the state censorship board, and the attorney defendants appealed the decision of the District Court of Wyandotte County. It was found that the law that allowed the board to deny a request for a permit allowing United Artists to show the motion picture The Moon is Blue in Kansas theaters was unconstitutional, and an injunction was issued prohibiting the defendants from stopping the exhibition of the film in Kansas.

References

  1. Harris Ross (2008). "THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE BOARD OF CENSORS: THE GREAT WAR, D. W. THE MOVIES, AND GRIFFITH". Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies. The Pennsylvania Historical Association. 75 (2): 227–259. doi:10.2307/27778831. JSTOR   27778831. S2CID   164931860.
  2. Laura Wittern-Keller, “All the Power of the Law: Governmental Film Censorship in the United States”, in Silencing Cinema: Film Censorship around the World, eds. Daniel Biltereyst & Roel Vande Winkel (NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013).
  3. Smith, Frederick James (October 1922). "Foolish Censors". Photoplay . New York. 22 (5): 40. Retrieved December 3, 2013.