Film censorship in the United States – Wikipedia
Film censorship in the United States was a frequent feature of the industry since almost the beginning of the 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 dates to an 1897 statute of Maine that prohibited the exhibition of prizefight films.[2] Maine enacted the statute to prevent the exhibition of the 1897 heavyweight championship between James J. Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons. Some other states followed the example of Maine.
Chicago enacted the first censorship ordinance in the United States in 1907, authorizing its police chief to screen all films to determine whether they should be permitted on screens. Detroit followed the same year. When upheld in a court challenge in 1909, other cities followed and Pennsylvania became the first to enact state-wide censorship of movies in 1911 (though it did not fund the effort until 1914). It was soon followed by Ohio (1914), Kansas (1915), Maryland (1916), New York (1921) and, finally, Virginia (1922). Eventually, at least one hundred cities across the nation empowered local censorship boards.[3]
In 1915, the US Supreme Court decided the case Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio in which the court determined that motion pictures were purely commerce and not an art and so not covered by the First Amendment. This decision was not overturned until the Supreme Court case, Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson in 1952. Popularly referred to as the "Miracle Decision", the ruling involved the short film "The Miracle", part of Roberto Rossellini's anthology film L'Amore (1948).
Between the Mutual Film and the Joseph Burstyn decisions, local, state, and city censorship boards had the power to edit or ban films. City and state censorship ordinances are nearly as old as the movies themselves, and such ordinances banning the public exhibition of "immoral" films proliferated.
Seven states[4] formed film censorship boards, which both pre-dated and outlasted the Hays Code:
Public outcry over perceived immorality in Hollywood and the movies, as well as the growing number of city and state censorship boards, led the movie studios to fear that federal regulations were not far off; so they created, in 1922, the Motion Pictures Producers and Distributors Association (which became the Motion Picture Association of America in 1945), an industry trade and lobby organization. The association was headed by Will H. Hays, a well-connected Republican lawyer who had previously been United States Postmaster General; and he derailed attempts to institute federal censorship over the movies.
In 1927, Hays compiled a list of subjects, culled from his experience with the various US censorship boards, which he felt Hollywood studios would be wise to avoid. He called this list "the formula" but it was popularly known as the "don'ts and be carefuls" list. In 1930, Hays created the Studio Relations Committee (SRC) to implement his censorship code, but the SRC lacked any real enforcement capability.
The advent of talking pictures in 1927 led to a perceived need for further enforcement. Martin Quigley, the publisher of a Chicago-based motion picture trade newspaper, began lobbying for a more extensive code that not only listed material that was inappropriate for the movies, but also contained a moral system that the movies could help to promote - specifically a system based on Catholic theology. He recruited Father Daniel Lord, a Jesuit priest and instructor at the Catholic St. Louis University, to write such a code and on March 31, 1930 the board of directors of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association adopted it formally. This original version especially was once popularly known as the Hays Code, but it and its later revisions are now commonly called the Production Code.
However, Depression economics and changing social mores resulted in the studios producing racier fare that the Code, lacking an aggressive enforcement body, was unable to redress. This era is known as Pre-Code Hollywood.
An amendment to the Code, adopted on June 13, 1934, established the Production Code Administration (PCA), and required all films released on or after July 1, 1934 to obtain a certificate of approval before being released. For more than thirty years following, virtually all motion pictures produced in the United States and released by major studios adhered to the code. The Production Code was not created or enforced by federal, state, or city government. In fact, the Hollywood studios adopted the code in large part in the hopes of avoiding government censorship, preferring self-regulation to government regulation.
The enforcement of the Production Code led to the dissolution of many local censorship boards. Meanwhile, the US Customs Department prohibited the importation of the Czech film Ecstasy (1933), starring an actress soon to be known as Hedy Lamarr, an action which was upheld on appeal.
In 1934, Joseph I. Breen (18881965) was appointed head of the new Production Code Administration (PCA). Under Breen's leadership of the PCA, which lasted until his retirement in 1954, enforcement of the Production Code became rigid and notorious. Breen's power to change scripts and scenes angered many writers, directors, and Hollywood moguls. The PCA had two offices, one in Hollywood, and the other in New York City. Films approved by the New York PCA office were issued certificate numbers that began with a zero.
The first major instance of censorship under the Production Code involved the 1934 film Tarzan and His Mate, in which brief nude scenes involving a body double for actress Maureen O'Sullivan were edited out of the master negative of the film. Another famous case of enforcement involved the 1943 western The Outlaw, produced by Howard Hughes. The Outlaw was denied a certificate of approval and kept out of theaters for years because the film's advertising focused particular attention on Jane Russell's breasts. Hughes eventually persuaded Breen that the breasts did not violate the code and the film could be shown.
Some films produced outside the mainstream studio system during this time did flout the conventions of the code, such as Child Bride (1938), which featured a nude scene involving 12-year-old actress Shirley Mills. Even cartoon sex symbol Betty Boop had to change from being a flapper, and began to wear an old-fashioned housewife skirt.
In 1936, Arthur Mayer and Joseph Burstyn attempted to distribute Whirlpool of Desire, a French film originally titled Remous and directed by Edmond T. Greville. The legal battle lasted until November 1939, when the film was released in the U.S.
In 1952, in the case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overruled its 1915 decision and held that motion pictures were entitled to First Amendment protection, so that the New York State Board of Regents could not ban "The Miracle", a short film that was one half of L'Amore (1948), an anthology film directed by Roberto Rossellini. Film distributor Joseph Burstyn released the film in the U.S. in 1950, and the case became known as the "Miracle Decision" due to its connection to Rossellini's film. That in turn reduced the threat of government regulation that justified the Production Code, and the PCA's powers over the Hollywood industry were greatly reduced.[9]
At the forefront of challenges to the code was director Otto Preminger, whose films violated the code repeatedly in the 1950s. His 1953 film The Moon is Blue, about a young woman who tries to play two suitors off against each other by claiming that she plans to keep her virginity until marriage, was the first film since the pre-code Hollywood days to use the words "virgin", "seduce" and "mistress", and it was released without a certificate of approval. He later made The Man with the Golden Arm (1955), which portrayed the prohibited subject of drug abuse, and Anatomy of a Murder (1959) which dealt with rape. Preminger's films were direct assaults on the authority of the Production Code and, since they were successful, hastened its abandonment.
In 1954, Joseph Breen retired and Geoffrey Shurlock was appointed as his successor. Variety noted "a decided tendency towards a broader, more casual approach" in the enforcement of the code.
Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot (1959) and Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960) were also released without a certificate of approval due to their themes and became box office hits, and as a result further weakened the authority of the code.
In the early 1960s, British films such as Victim (1961), A Taste of Honey (1961), and The Leather Boys (1963) offered a daring social commentary about gender roles and homophobia that violated the Hollywood Production Code, yet the films were still released in America. The American women's rights, gay rights, civil rights, and youth movements prompted a reevaluation of the depiction of themes of race, class, gender, and sexuality that had been restricted by the Code. In addition, the growing popularity of international films with more explicit content helped to discredit the Code.
In 1964 The Pawnbroker, directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Rod Steiger, was initially rejected because of two scenes in which the actresses Linda Geiser and Thelma Oliver fully expose their breasts; and a sex scene between Oliver and Jaime Snchez, which it described as "unacceptably sex suggestive and lustful." Despite the rejection, the film's producers arranged for Allied Artists to release the film without the Production Code seal and the New York censors licensed The Pawnbroker without the cuts demanded by Code administrators. The producers also appealed the rejection to the Motion Picture Association of America.[10]
On a 6-3 vote, the MPAA granted the film an "exception" conditional on "reduction in the length of the scenes which the Production Code Administration found unapprovable." The exception to the Code was granted as a "special and unique case," and was described by The New York Times as "an unprecedented move that will not, however, set a precedent."[11]The requested reductions of nudity were minimal, and the outcome was viewed in the media as a victory for the film's producers.[10] The Pawnbroker was the first film since pre-code era featuring bare breasts to receive Production Code approval. In his 2008 study of films during that era, Pictures at a Revolution, author Mark Harris wrote that the MPAA's action was "the first of a series of injuries to the Production Code that would prove fatal within three years."[11]
When Jack Valenti became President of the MPAA in 1966, he was immediately faced with a problem regarding language in the film version of Edward Albee's play Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966). Valenti negotiated a compromise: The word "screw" was removed, but other language, including the phrase "hump the hostess," remained. The film received Production Code approval despite having language that was clearly prohibited. The British-produced, but American financed film Blowup (1966) presented a different problem. After the film was denied Production Code approval, MGM released it anyway, the first instance of an MPAA member company distributing a film that did not have an approval certificate. The MPAA could do little about it.
Enforcement had become impossible, and the Production Code was abandoned.
Go here to read the rest:
Film censorship in the United States - Wikipedia
- DeepSeek is giving the world a window into Chinese censorship and information control - CNN International - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- Executive Order to the State Department Sideswipes Freedom Tools, Threatens Censorship Resistance, Privacy, and Anonymity of Millions - EFF - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- ADF presses five major universities for records on government censorship - ADF Media - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- Why We Should Fear Trump Silencing Science and What We Can Do About It - U.S. News & World Report - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- Researchers are terrified of Trumps freeze on science. The rest of us should be, too. - Vox.com - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- Conservative law firm launches probe into five major universities for alleged 'censorship regime' - Fox News - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- Some of the most ingenious ways people are bypassing DeepSeeks censorship: Using emojis might work - AS USA - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- Comment | Censorship in the US is rearing its ugly head againbut the art world isn't taking it lying down - Art Newspaper - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- Seizure of Sally Mann photographs in Texas revives old debates about obscenity, free expression - Free Speech Center - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- Chinese films dodging censors have no place to go. Can they crack into Taiwan? - Los Angeles Times - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- Meta back in the tent after agreeing to settle Trumps $25M censorship lawsuit - SiliconANGLE News - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- We tried out DeepSeek. It worked well, until we asked it about Tiananmen Square and Taiwan - The Guardian - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- Library Director Rachel Winner speaks on the role of libraries, Censorship. - Sullivan Daily Times - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- Day 3: USC Conference on Censorship in the Sciences - Why Evolution Is True - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- DeepSeek Starts to Explain Tiananmen Square Massacre, Then Gets Caught by Built-In Censorship System - Futurism - February 1st, 2025 [February 1st, 2025]
- A White House order claims to end 'censorship.' What does that mean? - NPR - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- DeepSeek is the hottest new AI chatbotbut it comes with Chinese censorship built in - Fortune - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- Opinion | Conservatives Have No Interest in Censorship - The Wall Street Journal - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- Donald Trump and Elon Musk appear in Ben & Jerry's censorship lawsuit against Unilever, its parent company. Here's why. - Business Insider - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- Disinformation experts blast Trumps executive order on government censorship as direct assault on reality - CNN - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- Ben & Jerry's is accusing its parent company of censorship because it allegedly blocked a post that mentioned Donald Trump - Fortune - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- 'This is censorship': Trump freeze on communications forces medical journal to pull HHS authors' article - STAT - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- Analysis | Trumps anti-censorship order has a blind spot - The Washington Post - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- The TikTok Ban: Foreign Influence Through Censorship, Propaganda, and Espionage - Independent Women's Forum - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- DeepSeek: This is what live censorship looks like in the Chinese AI chatbot - Trending Topics SEE - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- Why President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning government 'censorship' - USA TODAY - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- Government Officials Who Engaged In Censorship Must Be Held Accountable - The Daily Wire - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- Statement from the Kids Right to Read Project on the U.S. Department of Educations Dismissal of Book Bans as a "Hoax" - Blogging Censorship - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- JD Vance says big tech firms still very much on notice for censoring conservatives: Face the consequences - New York Post - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- Trump talks free speech while moving to muzzle those he disagrees with - Los Angeles Times - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- Trump targets government censorship with new executive order - WXLV - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- What's behind a White House order ending 'federal censorship' - KUOW News and Information - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- Trump Takes Aim at Social Media 'Censorship' With Executive Order - CNET - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- EU doubles down on social media censorship that will not be confined to Europe following concerns about Musks free speech policy on X - ADF... - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- Is TikTok Turning Into a Censorship Machine? Users Witness New Restrictions After Trump's Order - Benzinga - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- FIRE to University of Texas at Dallas: Stop censoring the student press - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- Students concerned over censorship, career instability in wake of TikTok ban - Daily Free Press - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- TikTok Users Now On RedNote Are Starting To See One Very Big Problem With the App - Mic - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- Tweeting the truth: Should social media companies have the right to censor content? - berkeleyhighjacket.com - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- Kiehl's won't beat around the bush following ad censorship - Marketing Interactive - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- Press freedom in Turkey declined further in 2024 amid censorship, arrests and intimidation: report - Stockholm Center for Freedom - January 27th, 2025 [January 27th, 2025]
- America Is No Longer the Home of the Free Internet - The Atlantic - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- Call for censorship culture to end as Unity Mitfords German diary is revealed - The Guardian - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- Banning TikTok enables online censorship - Freedom of the Press Foundation - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- Zuckerbergs conservative pivot fogs our understanding of censorship - Kansas Reflector - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- The TikTok ban isnt about national security its censorship and government control - The Hill - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- How the Trump administration threatens internet freedoms - Al Jazeera English - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- Censorship or common sense? - Editor And Publisher Magazine - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- TikTok refugees flock to another (heavily censored) Chinese app - The Washington Post - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- Bill Burr on Adapting His Ahole Vibe, Wanting a Hostile Crowd for New Hulu Special and How a Rabbi Changed His Perspective on Censorship (EXCLUSIVE) -... - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- In Russia, Reading Can Be Harmful To Your Health - Air Mail - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- The Media Is Giving Away Its Rights Even Before Trump Tries to Take Them - The Nation - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- How Trumps Return Is Pushing the Media to Self-Censor - Mother Jones - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- From Russia to the EU: The high stakes of Metas content moderation shift - Global Voices - January 19th, 2025 [January 19th, 2025]
- Meta is getting rid of fact checkers. Zuckerberg acknowledged more harmful content will appear on the platforms now - CNN International - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- Mark Zuckerbergs excuse for ending fact-checking program is a hoax, say experts: It is a lie that we are censors - EL PAS USA - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- Legislative Efforts Heat Up on Book, Curricular Censorship Attempts | Censorship News - School Library Journal - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- Ok, Zuck: So You Say You're Going To Stop Censoring Conservatives; Call Me Skeptical | Tomi Lahren - Outkick - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- Meta follows Musks lead on censorship but ad industry keeps its distance from panic - Digiday - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- How games might be the key to avoiding digital censorship - EurekAlert - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- The tyranny of woke censorship is finally over and its all thanks to Donald Trump - The Telegraph - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- If Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, U.S. will see first-of-its-kind act of censorship | Opinion - Sacramento Bee - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- Disney under pressure from conservative shareholders to disavow ad censorship - Washington Times - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- Meta is Getting Rid of Fact-Checkers to Reduce Censorship on Facebook and Instagram - PetaPixel - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- Mark Zuckerberg's Meta is moving moderators from California to Texas to combat concerns about bias and censorship - Business Insider - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- Zuckerberg says Facebook will stop censoring and allow more political free speech: X effect - Must Read Alaska - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- Students in every country have the right to free speech! Oppose the censorship of the Sri Lankan IYSSE! - WSWS - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- Is the end of the Big Tech industrial censorship upon us? - The Spectator World - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- Dont let Facebook off the hook for its pro-censorship past so easily - New York Post - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- Mark Zuckerberg rolls back Meta censorship ahead of Donald Trump's return to White House - Washington Times - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- Grounds of Getty Museum in LA Catch Fire, The Washington Posts Cartoonist Quits Over Censorship: Morning Links for January 8, 2025 - ARTnews - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- Is this the end of the Big Tech censorship industrial complex? - The Spectator - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- Comedian ended her 'Stockholm Syndrome' with the left, says it's become 'party of censorship' - Fox8tv - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- Facebook Reverses Course On Censorship, Plus Is The Left Driven By Empathy Or Hate? with Dr. Gad Saad | Will Cain Show - Fox News - January 9th, 2025 [January 9th, 2025]
- Combating The Rising Threat Of Censorship In 2025 - The Daily Wire - January 1st, 2025 [January 1st, 2025]
- Social Media Companies Face Global Tug-of-War Over Free Speech - The New York Times - January 1st, 2025 [January 1st, 2025]
- Elon Musk accused of censoring right-wing X accounts who disagree with him on immigration - Sky News - January 1st, 2025 [January 1st, 2025]
- Conservatives continue to accuse Musk of censorship amid row over immigration - Anadolu Agency | English - January 1st, 2025 [January 1st, 2025]
- Conservatives Score Major Victory Against D.C. Censorship Cartel - AMAC Official Website - Join and Explore the Benefits - January 1st, 2025 [January 1st, 2025]
- Deepseek's V3 is the latest example of state-controlled censorship in Chinese LLMs - THE DECODER - January 1st, 2025 [January 1st, 2025]