View source for Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
__NOTOC__
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio
|ArgueDateA=January 6
|ArgueDateB=7
|ArgueYear=1915
|DecideDate=February 23
|DecideYear=1915
|FullName=Mutual Film Corporation, Appellant v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, et al.
|USVol=236
|USPage=230
|ParallelCitations=35 S. Ct. 387; 59 [[L. Ed.]] 552; 1915 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 1755
|Prior=
|Subsequent=
|Holding=The free speech protection of the Ohio Constitution did not extend to motion pictures.
|Majority=McKenna
|JoinMajority=''unanimous''
|LawsApplied=
|Overruled=''[[Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson]]'' (1952)
}}
'''''Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio''''', 236 U.S. 230 (1915), was a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States|landmark decision]] of the [[US Supreme Court]] ruling by a 9–0 vote that the [[Freedom of speech|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 picture]]s.<ref>{{ cite journal | last1 = Walter | first1 = Robert H.K. | title = Constitutional Law: Possible Impact of Television Rule on Motion Picture Censorship | journal = California Law Review | date = 1951 | volume = 39 | issue = 3 | pages = 421–429| issn = 0008-1221 | doi = 10.2307/3478157 | jstor = 3478157 }}</ref>
==Background==
The state government of [[Ohio]] had passed a statute in 1913 forming a board of [[censorship|censors]] which had the duty of reviewing and approving all films intended to be exhibited in the state. Like other state and municipal governments, Ohio charged a licensing fee to distributors.<ref name=pondillo>[https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/358/mutual-film-corp-v-industrial-commission-of-ohio Pondillo, Bob. "Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915)", ''The First Amendment Encyclopedia'', Middle Tennessee State University]</ref> The board could order the arrest of anyone showing an unapproved film in the state.{{citation needed|date=May 2021}}
The plaintiff, [[Mutual Film Corporation]], was a movie distributor and sought an injunction against the Board. Mutual argued that in addition to the violation of its freedom of speech, the censorship board was interfering with [[interstate commerce]] in violation of the [[Dormant Commerce Clause]]<ref name=pondillo/> and that the government had illegally delegated legislative authority to a censor board.  Those arguments were dismissed by the Court perfunctorily.
==Decision==
[[Justice McKenna]], writing for the Court stated:
{{blockquote|... the exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit ... not to be regarded, nor intended to be regarded by the Ohio Constitution, we think, as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public opinion.<ref name=pondillo/>}}
The Court described movies in some technical detail and noted their popularity but wrote that as "they may be used for evil, ... We cannot regard [the censorship of movies] as beyond the power of government." The Court added that it would be equally unreasonable to grant free speech protection to the theater or the circus and noted that in many prior cases regarding government licensure of theatrical performances, the issue of freedom of opinion had not been raised.
== Overturned ==
The decision that motion pictures did not merit First Amendment protection drove an increase in regulation of film content, which culminated in the enforcement in July 1934 of the [[Hays Code|Production Code]] over all Hollywood films. The Production Code, also known as the Hays Code, was not law but an agreement between studios and theaters to self-censor, partly to avoid the patchwork of local censorship laws that existed around the country. In May 1952, the Supreme Court overturned its ''Mutual'' decision in ''[[Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson]]'', popularly known as the "Miracle Decision" since it referred to the [[short film]] ''The Miracle'', part of the [[anthology film]] ''[[L'Amore (film)|L'Amore]]'' (1948), directed by [[Roberto Rossellini]].
The Production Code was loosened in the 1950s and 1960s and was eventually abandoned, in favor of the [[Motion Picture Association of America film rating system|MPAA film rating system]] in 1968.
==See also==
*[[Film censorship in the United States]]
*[[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 236]]
*[[List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment]]
*''[[Whirlpool of Desire]]'' (1935) French film distributed by [[Arthur Mayer]] and Joseph Burstyn
==References==
{{Reflist}}
==Further reading==
*{{cite journal |last=Jowett |first=Garth S. |year=1989 |title='A capacity for evil': The 1915 supreme court ''Mutual'' Decision |journal=Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=59–78 |doi=10.1080/01439688900260041 }}
*{{cite journal |last=Wertheimer |first=John |year=1993 |title=''Mutual Film'' Reviewed: The Movies, Censorship, and Free Speech in Progressive America |journal=American Journal of Legal History |volume=37 |issue=2 |pages=158–189 |doi=10.2307/845372|publisher=Temple University |jstor= 845372 }}
==External links==
*{{wikisource-inline|https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Mutual_Film_Corporation_v._Industrial_Commission_of_Ohio&oldid=5732156|''Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio''}}
*{{caselaw source
| case=''Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio'', {{ussc|236|230|1915|el=no}}
| courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/98362/mutual-film-corp-v-industrial-commn-of-ohio/
| findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/236/230.html
| googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7270078849202844362
| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/230/case.html
| loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep236/usrep236230/usrep236230.pdf
}}
{{US1stAmendment|speech|state=collapsed}}
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the White Court]]
[[Category:Overruled United States Supreme Court decisions]]
[[Category:United States First Amendment case law]]
[[Category:United States Free Speech Clause case law]]
[[Category:1915 in United States case law]]
[[Category:Film censorship in the United States]]