MUTUAL FILM CORPORATION V INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO 236 U.S 230 1915 MUTUAL FILM CORPORATION V OHIO U.S CONSTITUTION U.S GOV'T JUDICIAL BUSINESS/COMMERCE COMMUNICATIONS U.S GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS CASE THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED TO WITHHOLD FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS FROM THE FILM INDUSTRY BECAUSE IT WAS PRIMARILY A FOR PROFIT BUSINESS RATHER THAN A MEDIUM FOR THE EXPRESSION OF IDEAS BACKGROUND MUTUAL FILM CORPORATION HAD A FILM DISTRIBUTION HOUSE IN DETROIT THAT SENT FILMS OUT TO EXHIBITORS IN MICHIGAN AND OHIO THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO APPOINTED A STATE BOARD OF CENSORS WHO INSISTED ON THE RIGHT TO APPROVE THE FILMS AND HAVE THEM CENSORED IF NECESSARY MUTUAL FILM CORPORATION ARGUED THAT CENSORING ITS APPROXIMATELY 2500 REELS OF FILM WOULD TAKE TOO MUCH TIME IN ADDITION IT REFUSED TO PAY THE COST OF CENSORING THE FILMS MUTUAL CONTESTED THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE GROUNDS THAT THEY PLACED A BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND VIOLATED THE COMPANY'S RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PUBLICATION DECISION THIS CASE WAS ARGUED ON JANUARY 6 7 1915 AND DECIDED ON FEBRUARY 23 1915 JUSTICE JOSEPH MCKENNA SPOKE FOR THE UNANIMOUS COURT WHICH DECIDED THAT THE STATE SHOULD HAVE SOME KIND OF SAY IN WHAT IS BEING TRANSPORTED INTO IT FOR PUBLIC EXHIBITION AND THAT FILMS SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME INTERSTATE COMMERCE CONDITIONS AS OTHER CONSUMER GOODS THE COURT JUDGED THAT FILM EXHIBITION WAS A FOR PROFIT BUSINESS NOT A DEMONSTRATION OF FREE SPEECH OR PRESS THEREFORE IT WAS NOT PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION
