Mutual Film Corporation of Missouri v. George H. Hodges
Headline: State law requiring official approval of motion‑picture films before public display is upheld, letting the State regulate film content and penalize exhibitors who show unapproved movies while sellers remain indirectly affected.
Holding:
- Lets the State require official approval before films are publicly shown.
- Makes exhibitors criminally liable for showing unapproved films.
- Imposes a $2 fee per film examination and recordkeeping
Summary
Background
A film distributor or exchange challenged a State law that requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to examine and approve moving‑picture films before they may be publicly shown. The law exempts films used in schools, charges a $2 fee per examination, requires a written approval stamp and a record of approvals and rejections, and allows the Superintendent to disapprove films described as sacrilegious, obscene, indecent, immoral, or likely to corrupt morals. The Superintendent can supervise displays, demand descriptions, view films for inspection, and a review panel (the Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State) can overturn a disapproval. The statute punishes exhibitors or those permitting exhibition of unapproved films with misdemeanor liability and fines. This case was argued together with a similar Ohio case and relies on the same briefs.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the approval scheme unlawfully interfered with interstate commerce, abridged freedom of opinion, or improperly delegated legislative power to an official. The Court held the law is a valid exercise of the State’s police power (the State’s authority to protect public morals and safety). It rejected the distributor’s attempt to treat the statute as criminalizing importation or sales, explained the statute targets exhibition within the State, and found it does not unconstitutionally burden commerce, free expression, or constitute an improper delegation. The Court applied reasoning from the companion case and affirmed the lower court’s decree.
Real world impact
The ruling allows the State to continue enforcing its film‑approval system, including inspections, approval stamps, fees, records, and penalties against exhibitors who show unapproved films. Film sellers may experience reduced or altered local demand but are not directly criminalized by the statute’s language. The Superintendent’s reviews and the review panel will guide what movie content may be publicly shown in the State.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?