[{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/mutual-film-corp-v-industrial-commission-of-ohio\/#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/mutual-film-corp-v-industrial-commission-of-ohio\/","headline":"Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio","name":"Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio","description":"before-content-x4 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia after-content-x4 1915 United States Supreme Court case Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of","datePublished":"2016-09-08","dateModified":"2016-09-08","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/author\/lordneo\/#Person","name":"lordneo","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/author\/lordneo\/","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c9645c498c9701c88b89b8537773dd7c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c9645c498c9701c88b89b8537773dd7c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","width":600,"height":60}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:CentralAutoLogin\/start?type=1x1","url":"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:CentralAutoLogin\/start?type=1x1","height":"1","width":"1"},"url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/mutual-film-corp-v-industrial-commission-of-ohio\/","about":["Wiki"],"wordCount":3007,"articleBody":"     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});before-content-x4From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x41915 United States Supreme Court caseMutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling by a 9-0 vote that the 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 pictures. [1]       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4Table of ContentsBackground[edit]Decision[edit]Overturned[edit]See also[edit]References[edit]Further reading[edit]External links[edit]Background[edit]The state government of Ohio had passed a statute in 1913 forming a board of 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.[2] The board could order the arrest of anyone showing an unapproved film in the state.[citation needed]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[2] and that the government had illegally delegated legislative authority to a censor board.  Those arguments were dismissed by the Court perfunctorily.Decision[edit]Justice McKenna, writing for the Court stated:       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4… 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.[2]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[edit]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 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 (1948), directed by Roberto Rossellini.The Production Code was loosened in the 1950s and 1960s and was eventually abandoned, in favor of the MPAA film rating system in 1968.See also[edit]References[edit]Further reading[edit]Jowett, Garth S. (1989). “‘A capacity for evil’: The 1915 supreme court Mutual Decision”. Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television. 9 (1): 59\u201378. doi:10.1080\/01439688900260041.Wertheimer, John (1993). “Mutual Film Reviewed: The Movies, Censorship, and Free Speech in Progressive America”. American Journal of Legal History. Temple University. 37 (2): 158\u2013189. doi:10.2307\/845372. JSTOR\u00a0845372.External links[edit]UnprotectedspeechIncitementand seditionLibel andfalse speechFighting words andthe heckler’s vetoTrue threatsObscenityRosen v. United States (1896)United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933)Roth v. United States (1957)One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958)Smith v. California (1959)Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961)MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day (1962)Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964)Ginzburg v. United States (1966)Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)Redrup v. New York (1967)Ginsberg v. New York (1968)Stanley v. Georgia (1969)United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971)Kois v. Wisconsin (1972)Miller v. California (1973)Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973)United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973)Jenkins v. Georgia (1974)Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (1975)Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975)Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (1976)Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. (1980)American Booksellers Ass’n, Inc. v. Hudnut (7th Cir. 1985)People v. Freeman (Cal. 1988)United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (1994)Reno v. ACLU (1997)United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000)City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (2002)Ashcroft v. ACLU I (2002)United States v. American Library Ass’n (2003)Ashcroft v. ACLU II (2004)Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y. 2005)United States v. Williams (2008)American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir. 2009)United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir. 2009)United States v. Stevens (2010)Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n (2011)FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2012)Speech integralto criminal conductStrict scrutinyVaguenessSymbolic speechversus conductContent-basedrestrictionsContent-neutralrestrictionsCompelled speechCompelled subsidyof others’ speechGovernment grantsand subsidiesGovernmentas speakerLoyalty oathsSchool speechPublic employeesHatch Act andsimilar lawsLicensing andrestriction of speechCommercial speechValentine v. Chrestensen (1942)Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations (1973)Lehman v. Shaker Heights (1974)Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975)Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro (1977)Carey v. Population Services International (1977)Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)In re Primus (1978)Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association (1978)Friedman v. Rogers (1979)Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n (1980)Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981)In re R.M.J. (1982)Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio (1985)Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California (1986)Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico (1986)San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee (1987)Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association (1988)Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind (1988)State University of New York v. Fox (1989)Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois (1990)City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (1993)Edenfield v. Fane (1993)United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. (1993)Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy (1994)Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (1995)Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. (1995)Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. (1995)44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. (1997)Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. (1999)United States v. United Foods Inc. (2001)Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001)Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002)Nike, Inc. v. Kasky (2003)Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass’n (2005)Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy (2007)Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States (2010)Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011)Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (2017)Matal v. Tam (2017)Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020)Campaign financeand political speechAnonymous speechState actionOfficial retaliationBoycottsPrisonsPrior restraintsand censorshipPrivacyTaxation andprivilegesDefamationBroadcast mediaCopyrighted materials       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4"},{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/mutual-film-corp-v-industrial-commission-of-ohio\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio"}}]}]