Changes

Since shortly after motion pictures first became popular in the United States, public and [[church]] officials expressed great concern about the moral tone of motion-picture content. Nor was this concern entirely misplaced. In sharp contrast to the traditional stage, motion pictures are acted out ''away from the immediate presence of their viewers''. This salient fact caused many motion-picture producers to act without the restraint that stage producers and directors had to observe, and therefore many motion-picture projects presented salacious spectacles of which even the [[Rome|Roman]] [[Emperor]] [[Nero]] would be proud.

Since shortly after motion pictures first became popular in the United States, public and [[church]] officials expressed great concern about the moral tone of motion-picture content. Nor was this concern entirely misplaced. In sharp contrast to the traditional stage, motion pictures are acted out ''away from the immediate presence of their viewers''. This salient fact caused many motion-picture producers to act without the restraint that stage producers and directors had to observe, and therefore many motion-picture projects presented salacious spectacles of which even the [[Rome|Roman]] [[Emperor]] [[Nero]] would be proud.

In response, many State [[legislature]]s began passing laws regulating the kinds of motion pictures that could be shown within their jurisdictions. In 1915 the Mutual Film Corporation sued to prevent enforcement, by the Industrial Commission of Ohio, of such a law within [[Ohio]]. Eventually the [[Supreme Court]] of the [[United States]] held<ref name=MutvOhio>''[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=236&invol=230 Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio]'', 236 U.S. 230 (1915), retrieved April 6, 2007, from FindLaw.com</ref> that motion pictures did not enjoy the protection against "abridgment of the freedom of speech" mentioned in the First Amendment to the [[United States Constitution]]

In response, many State [[legislature]]s began passing laws regulating the kinds of motion pictures that could be shown within their jurisdictions. In 1915 the Mutual Film Corporation sued to prevent enforcement, by the Industrial Commission of Ohio, of such a law within [[Ohio]]. Eventually the [[Supreme Court]] of the [[United States]] held<ref name=MutvOhio>''[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=236&invol=230 Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio]'', 236 U.S. 230 (1915), retrieved April 6, 2007, from FindLaw.com</ref> that motion pictures did not enjoy the protection against "abridgment of the freedom of speech" mentioned in the First Amendment to the [[United States Constitution]].

The 1920's saw the drug-related deaths--and, in two memorable cases, the murders--of a number of film actors and directors. This, in addition to the content of many projects, caused the public to regard [[Hollywood]] with a jaundiced eye.<ref name=Wikipedia>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_Code Production Code] by [[Wikipedia]]</ref>

The 1920's saw the drug-related deaths--and, in two memorable cases, the murders--of a number of film actors and directors. This, in addition to the content of many projects, caused the public to regard [[Hollywood]] with a jaundiced eye.<ref name=Wikipedia>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_Code Production Code] by [[Wikipedia]]</ref>