翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Mutual combat
・ Mutual Construction Co v Komati Dam Joint Venture
・ Mutual Core
・ Mutual credit
・ Mutual Defense Assistance Act
・ Mutual Defense Treaty (United States – Philippines)
・ Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea
・ Mutual engagement
・ Mutual exchange
・ Mutual exclusion
・ Mutual exclusivity
・ Mutual exclusivity (psychology)
・ Mutual Feeling
・ Mutual Film
・ Mutual Film Company
Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio
・ Mutual Friends
・ Mutual Friends (album)
・ Mutual Friends (film)
・ Mutual fund
・ Mutual Fund Dealers Association
・ Mutual Fund Directors Forum
・ Mutual fund fees and expenses
・ Mutual fund separation theorem
・ Mutual fund trust
・ Mutual funds in India
・ Mutual Gains Approach
・ Mutual gains bargaining
・ Mutual Ice Company Building
・ Mutual Improvement Association


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio : ウィキペディア英語版
Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio
__NOTOC__
''Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio'', 236 U.S. 230 (1915), was a court case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1915, in which, in a 9-0 vote, the Court ruled 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.
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. The board charged a fee for the approval service. The board could order the arrest of anyone showing an unapproved film in the state.
The Court stated:
The Court described movies in some technical detail and noted their popularity, but wrote "they may be used for evil," and for this reason, "We cannot regard (censorship of movies ) as beyond the power of government." The Court added 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.
The plaintiff was Mutual Film Corporation, a movie distributor. Mutual had also 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; and that the government had illegally delegated legislative authority to a censor board. These arguments were dismissed by the Court more perfunctorily.
==Overturned==
The decision that motion pictures did not merit First Amendment protection drove increased regulation of movie content, culminating in the enforcement in July 1934 of the Production Code over all Hollywood films. The Production Code was not law, but an agreement between studios and theaters to self-censor, in part to preempt 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 eventually abandoned in favor of the movie rating system in 1968.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.