The star-independent. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1904-1917, 1915-03-22
THE PICTURE CENSORSHIP FIGHT

The fight for the repeal by the present Legisla-
ture of the law under which the state board of
sorship of motion pictures has been in operation
since last June has been carried to the point where
it is attracting great deal of attention from
persons in way interested financially in the
motion picture business. The exhibitors and film
salesmen have united in the effort to wipe out state
censorship and also have made an attack on Mr. j.
Louis Breitinger, the chief censor going so far as
to have asked Governor Brumbaugh to suspend Mr..
Breitnger pending a probe into his official con-
duet. The Governor has instructed Attorney Gen
era Brown to investigate both sides of the contro
versy, and it is reasonable to assume that in this
inquiry justice will be done to all concerned.
The Governor has made it clear that whatever
may be the outcome of the inquiry into the way Mr.
Breitnger has conducted his office the Governor
believes in maintaining picture censorship or in
other words it is certain he will not favor the abso
Lutte repeal of the present censorship law.
Despite the Governors attitude in the matter,
however, the picture determined to con-
tinue their fight for the entire elimination of state
censorship. Whether not this is the wise and
practical course for them to pursue there is good
deal that be said in support of their position
which apparently is little understood by the general
public. One of their arguments is that the censor
ing of motion pictures in un- American as it puts
a ban on free expression. Another point they make
is that under laws in existence before the one that
established the censorship board the police of the
various cities of the state had and still have all the
legal authority needed to stop any improper show
in motion picture theatre any other theatre,
and that therefore state censorship is superfluous
and serves merely to impose an additional expense
on the film men and exhibitors
The state censorship board, under the law,
charges $3.50 for each film submitted for its ap-
proval whether the film is passed upon favorably
or rejected. This expense, we'll as certain other
expenses incurred in conection with the examination
of the films, falls the shoulders of the film men
and the exhibitors. When it is considered also that
the exhibitors all have to pay state tax, federal
war tax and, In most cases, city mercantile tax
none of which is light, it can be we'll understood
why many of them fear their business will be ruined
if the costs of egazed state censorship continue to
be imposed.
1t must be remembered too that the great ma
jorty of motion picture theatre exhibitors are men
who have small theatres and that many of them
are barely able to make their own living out of the
business. Yet these exhibitors provide an immense
amount of entertainment and instruction at a very
low cost to the byno means-weathy class of people
who patronize the picture shows.
Moreover it must be recalled that the exhibitors
of this state of other parts of the country volun-
tarily maintain the National Board of Censors,
which is composed of men of intelligence and ex-
perience in their line who have done very effective
work in eliminating Objectionable films.
Whether or not the Pennsylvania Legislature ab-
soutely repeals the censorship law it evident
that, in justice to the film men, upon whose ability
to do business at a reasonable profit depends the