Mutual Film Corp. v. Ohio Industrial Commission
236 U.S. 230, 35 S. Ct. 387 (1915)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The exhibition of motion pictures is a commercial enterprise and not a form of speech protected by the First Amendment; therefore, states may exercise their police powers to require prior censorship and approval of films before public exhibition.
Facts:
- Mutual Film Corporation, a Michigan company, distributed motion picture films to 'exchanges' in Ohio.
- These exchanges functioned as circulating libraries, renting the films to various exhibitors for public viewing in theaters across Ohio.
- Ohio enacted a law creating a Board of Censors responsible for examining all films intended for public exhibition in the state.
- The law mandated that the Board approve only those films it judged to be of a 'moral,educational or amusing and harmless character.'
- Any film not approved by the Board was prohibited from being publicly exhibited in Ohio.
- A fee was charged for the censorship service.
- The business of Mutual Film Corporation was directly subjected to this pre-exhibition censorship requirement.
Procedural Posture:
- Mutual Film Corporation filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
- The suit sought an injunction to stop the Industrial Commission of Ohio from enforcing the state's motion picture censorship statute.
- The District Court, a court of first instance, denied the injunction and dismissed the complaint.
- Mutual Film Corporation, as appellant, appealed the decision directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law requiring a board of censors to review and approve all motion pictures before public exhibition, based on a standard of whether they are of a 'moral, educational or amusing and harmless character,' violate constitutional free speech protections or constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McKenna
No, the state law does not violate constitutional free speech protections and is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The court reasoned that the exhibition of motion pictures is a 'business pure and simple,' conducted for profit like other spectacles such as circuses or theaters, and is not part of the 'press of the country or... organs of public opinion.' Because films are not a form of constitutionally protected speech and possess a 'capability and power' for evil due to their attractiveness, they are subject to the state's police power, which includes the ability to impose a system of prior censorship to protect public morals. The Court further held that the standard provided to the censors—'moral, educational or amusing and harmless'—was not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The legislature declared the policy, and these general terms gain sufficient precision 'from the sense and experience of men,' thus providing a workable guide for the administrative board and preventing purely arbitrary decision-making, especially given that the board's decisions were subject to judicial review.
Analysis:
This decision established the significant and long-standing legal principle that motion pictures were not a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. By classifying films as a commercial spectacle rather than a medium for expressing ideas, the Court sanctioned the practice of prior restraint through state and local censorship boards. This ruling allowed for widespread censorship of films for nearly four decades until the Supreme Court reversed this position in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952), which finally recognized film as a constitutionally protected art form. The Mutual Film case is now primarily studied as an example of how the Court's understanding of a new medium can evolve and how prior restraints, though heavily disfavored for the press, were once permitted for other forms of expression.
Unlock the full brief for Mutual Film Corp. v. Ohio Industrial Commission