Mutual Decision- Aarti V.

The underlying question made in the Mutual Film Corporation v. The Industrial Commission of Ohio was: if motion pictures were considered free speech under the Ohio Constitution. The Mutual Film Corp. argued that the censorship boards negated their free speech rights. The Court argued that films can be used to encourage evil and therefore should be censored. The court ruled that motion pictures were not considered a form of free speech.

This breifing was not too difficult to read. After reading multiple cases (as a Legal Studies minor) the dryness is jaded. Scarface was certainly effected by this case. If a films power to be evil or corrupting were not recognize at this time, perhaps the film industry would not have been watched so closely.

Mutual Decision – Ashley M

This was an incredibly difficult piece to read and, much like a political debate, you are bombarded with lots of repitition and circular reasoning instead of just getting to the point. It made it legal to censor films thought to be dangerous. This drastically changed many factors in the movie Scarface. One side of the argument was that censoring inhibited the right to free speech. The other side of the argument was that Congress had no right to inhibit free speech, but this was not congress making the law, it was a private organization.

Mutual Decision- Baha A

I thought that the Mutual decision was difficult to understand.  I read it about three times and I just didn’t get it.  I didn’t enjoy reading it; it was boring.  The decision is relevant to Scarface which is indicated by the censorship that the Hays Office enforced on the film. If the government would’ve made censorship illegal we would’ve seen a more interest movie in Scarface. There would’ve been more action, and action films are interesting.

Mutual Decision – Bart A

This was a very dry and difficult piece to read. Throughout the whole thing i was looking for the cut and dry information, but it was not there. The first half of the writing is mostly just background about what the case was all about. This was all very boring and made me read without really paying attention to it. When we went over the decision in class, it became much easier to understand. Basically what this decision was saying is that any films that display evil characteristics will be censored. Films that are moral, educational, and innocently entertaining are able to be aired, but still subject to censorship. This was because despite what characteristics the film displays, it is still subject to evil due to the large audience a film caters to.

Mutual decision:shristi

It was definitely confusing and long and boring reading I had ever had to read. The first time i read i i got lost in regards to who won and who lost. But after the class discussion, it seems to me that the reading isnt really that boring actually. just have to really patient through it. The core point was that movies that could be educational,fun with moral values do not need to be censored but if any flim uses those aspects to produce harm to the viewers should definitely be filtered before presenting it to the audience.

Emily M. Mutual Decision

In this case, Ohio state is trying to get films banned because they feel that though they could be educational, moral, or amusing, they are deceivingly corrupt and detrimental to a diverse viewing audience. Film corporation said that doing this or requiring extreme censorship would violate the Constitution and questioned where would it end? It was ruled in favor of the Film corporation and Ohio state lost.

This was very difficult for me to understand. I couldn’t keep my focus on the document and there were a lot of big words. I can see how this would apply to Scarface. Scarface posed threats on a diverse viewing audience as well.

Mutual Decision- Aldrin J.

Basically what the Mutual Film Corporation v. The Industrial Commission of Ohio say is that some rights given by the Ohio Constitution does not extend to the film companies. Since film could be used for evil, it is up to the government to look out to the public welfare by censoring them. The court also argue that if they give free speech protection to the film makers then they will also have to give it to the theater and circus.

I found this reading to be extremely hard, just for the fact that tend to put sentences within sentences and reiterate the same thing over and over again.

This relates to Scarface because one of the main reason that they believe that censorship boards are unjust is because of the 1st amendment that gives the people the freedom of speech and press. And since the court system doesn’t believe that the freedom of speech applies to film companies then  this make the actions of the censorship board OK and just.

Mutual Decisions – Aliyah Gaskins

Mutual Film Corporation v. The Industrial Commission of Ohio concerns the issue of censorship focusing mainly in films.  Some people in Ohio viewed all movies in a negative light that were not reviewed. On the other hand the film industry despised the idea of having movies reviewed.  The pre-production censorship is expensive for the film companies but also restricts freedom of speech and violates interstate commerce regulations. These violations included 5, 16 and 19 articles of the Constitution and articles 1 and 14 of the amendments.  The Commission argued because they only wanted the films in Ohio to be reviewed it was a violation of the interstate commerce regulations. Justice McKenna won the case against Mutual Film Corporation by stating all movies including the educational, funny or moral ones are evil. He argued the seemingly harmless films are the most threatening to audience. Despite the fact these films are considered harmless, it attracted people of all ages and genders regardless if the material was suitable for everyone.

This case was quite difficult to read due to the dull tone.  The way it was written is too detailed so it became discouraging for the reader.

You can relate the case to Scarface because it revolves around the forced process of pre-production of censoring necessary scenes in the film.

Mutual Decisions- Feda E

Mutual Film Corporation v. The Industrial Commission of Ohio is basically bringing together two arguments about the distribution and censorship of films. The industrial commission of Ohio enforces laws in which films need to be examined before distribution and a fee is charged to the exhibitors for exhibition. The film corporation argues in defense of their freedom of speech and insists that “no law may be passed to subject moving pictures to censorship before exhibition”.

Justice McKenna’s opinion on the matter asserts that even though he was against the Ohio law which prohibited freedom of speech and opinion, evil should not be pictorially represented in public places. Also, that some films can be more dangerous than they seem to be by indirectly suggesting immorality to the audience which may contain individuals from all ages and sexes.

The case was difficult to read.  I found it hard to understand exactly what point each person is making. It also seems very long and many of the words used I couldn’t understand.

The decision is relevant to Scarface which is indicated by the censorship that the Hays Office enforced on the film.

Mutual Decision – Ben V.

Basically the court decision was about negating a lower courts decision that pre-production censorship by the industrial commission of Ohio. In the case Mutual Film Corp. claims that pre-production censorship loses them money as the films become worth less. They also claim that it is in Violation of 5, 16, and 19 of article one of the Constitution as well as articles 1 and 14 of the Amendments. There is also a claim that the previous ruling gives the industrial commission of ohio legislatial powers which are reserved for the general assembly. The industrial commission argued that since they were only going for films shown in Ohio it had nothing to do with interstate commerce. The commission also asserted that only films that were not educational or moral would be subject to censorship. Justice McKenna states that “Therefore, however missionary of opinion films are or may become, however educational or entertaining, there is no impediment to their value or effect in the Ohio statute. But they may be used for evil, and against that possibility the statute was enacted.” This shows that the Justice believed in upholding the ruling of the previous court.

I found the decision hard to read based mainly on the poor flow of the document. The wording of the decision is put into so much depth that it becomes bothersome to move through the tide of words to find the meaning.

The decision is relevant to Scarface because it allowed for the kind of pre-production censorship that the Hay’s Office forced down the collaborative throat of Hawks, Hughes and Hecht.