User:59healy/sandbox

The National Legion of Decency was founded in 1933 as an organization dedicated to identifying and combating objectionable content in motion pictures from the point of view of the American Catholic Church. (1) After receiving a stamp of approval from the secular offices behind Hollywood’s Production Code, films during this time period were then submitted to the National Legion of Decency to be reviewed prior to their official duplication and distribution to the general public (2). Condemnation by the Legion would shake a film’s core for success because it meant the population of Catholics, some twenty million strong at the time, were theoretically forbidden from attending any screening of the film under the notion of mortal sin (3). Although the Legion was often envisioned as a huge bureaucratic arm of the Catholic Church, it instead was little more than a loose confederation of local organizations with each diocese appointing a local Legion director, usually a parish priest, who was responsible for Legion activities in that diocese. (4)

(1) Black, Gregory. The Catholic Crusade Against The Movies, 1940-1975. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 4. Print.

(2) Black, Gregory. The Catholic Crusade Against The Movies, 1940-1975. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 5. Print.

(3) ibid

(4) Black, Gregory. The Catholic Crusade Against The Movies, 1940-1975. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 27. Print.

In 1915, the Supreme Court heard a case regarding censorship in motion pictures called Mutual Film Corporation V. Ohio Industrial Commission. The Supreme Court held that states could censor films before they were released. (1) In 1948, the Supreme Court reversed the Mutual decision in the United States V. Paramount Pictures case. This is the case that established the Supreme Court’s position on censoring films: that they are protected under the first amendment as part of freedom of the press. (2) Just four years later, in 1952, the Supreme Court heard the case Joseph Burstyn, Inc. V. Wilson, which is the first case where the holding was that movies were protected under the free speech section of the first amendment and the fourteenth amendment. (3) This case, also known as “The Miracle” case, was based on the New York State ban on the Italian film The Miracle because it was deemed sacrilegious by many Catholic groups, including the Legion of Decency. (4) The Court’s decision that a film could not be banned because it was sacrilegious was challenged a year later in the Gelling V. Texas case in which a city in Texas had banned a film before its release. The Court upheld its previous ruling in the Miracle case, explaining that the American people could decide for themselves what they should and should not see. (5) Later, in 1957, the Supreme Court gave the film industry even more freedom in Roth V. the United States. This case held that movies could not be banned because they were not suitable for children if the movie was made for general audiences. (6) The Supreme Court’s position on film censorship, established in 1948, has been consistently against state censorship of film.

1) Robert H. K. Walter. “Constitutional Law: Possible Impact of Television Rule on Motion Picture Censorship”. California Law Review 39.3 (1951): 421. Web...

2) Secrest, Thales L. "Constitutional Law - Freedom of the Press - Does Censorship of Motion Pictures Violate Freedom of the Press." North Dakota Law Review 31.1 (1955): 63.

3) Harris, Albert W.. “Movie Censorship and the Supreme Court: What Next?”. California Law Review 42.1 (1954): 122. Web…

4) Secrest, Thales L. "Constitutional Law - Freedom of the Press - Does Censorship of Motion Pictures Violate Freedom of the Press." North Dakota Law Review 31.1 (1955): 64.

5) McCarroll, Tolbert H. "Constitutional Law - Freedom of Speech and Press - Censorship of Films." Oregon Law Review 34 (1954-1955): 253.

6) Friedman, Jane M.. “The Motion Picture Rating System of 1968: A Constitutional Analysis of Self-regulation by the Film Industry”. Columbia Law Review 73.2 (1973): 207. Web