Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio

Background

A company that made and distributed motion‑picture films challenged an Ohio law that requires films to be examined and approved before public showing in the State. The statute directs a board of censors to view films before delivery to exhibitors, charge fees, stamp approved films, and imposes penalties for exhibitions without approval. The law also allows a so‑called censor “congress” with other States’ boards to stand in for the Ohio board, and provides for judicial review in Ohio courts for those dissatisfied. The company argued the law unlawfully burdens interstate commerce, violates Ohio’s free‑speech guarantee, and improperly delegates legislative power.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the statute unlawfully affected out‑of‑state commerce, suppressed free speech, or gave away legislative authority. It held the law does not burden interstate commerce because it applies only to films intended for public exhibition in Ohio, even if shipped from another State. The Court rejected the free‑speech argument, saying moving pictures are commercial spectacles that can be regulated under the State’s police power to protect public morals and that the statute still allows many films that are moral, educational, or amusing. The delegation challenge also failed: the Court found the statutory terms (moral, educational, amusing, harmless) provide workable standards and administrative discretion is permissible, while noting the censor‑congress provision was speculative and not decided here. The decree of the lower court was affirmed.

Real world impact

As a result, Ohio may require distributors and exhibitors to submit films for pre‑approval and may bar unapproved shows and impose penalties. The ruling directly affects film distributors, theater operators, and audiences in Ohio; the opinion also leaves some specific questions (such as certain exceptions and the practical effect of a multi‑State censor congress) open for later decision.