←back to thread

The Big [Censored] Theory

(pudding.cool)
1444 points feross | 2 comments | 29 Aug 22 17:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.408s | source
Show context
joe_the_user ◴[29 Aug 22 19:56 UTC] No.32642764[source]▶
It's worth noting that American censorship in, say, 1960, was at close to the same level.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_censorship_in_the_United_...

replies(6): >>32642876 #>>32642898 #>>32643473 #>>32643557 #>>32643846 #>>32644219 #
1. pjc50 ◴[29 Aug 22 20:06 UTC] No.32642898[source]▶
When I saw the comment about "perfectly aligned with China’s “main melody” perspective that justice always wins.", I was immediately reminded of the Hays code. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code

(reading that again I discovered https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Film_Corp._v._Industria... ; the idea that movies were not counted as free speech for several decades in the US may come as a surprise to other HN readers)

replies(1): >>32643896 #
2. jibe ◴[29 Aug 22 21:37 UTC] No.32643896[source]▶
It's helpful to look at that case in the context of the time, which was pre-New Deal, more federalist, and the Bill of Rights applied narrowly to the Congress. It was about a state (Ohio) having a censorship board, not federal censorship.

The argument wasn't even made that it was a violation of the first amendment (which would have only applied to laws by Congress, not states). The argument was more about things like whether it was a violation of interstate commerce to have to have different versions of a movie for different states. They did argue that it violated the Ohio state constitutional right to free speech.