Censorship in the U.S. - Rosenberg James N. - An Address Delivered at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, March 15, 1928

Sep 21, 2026

Upload by Jiven

“Censorship in the U.S.” is an address by James N. Rosenberg of the New York Bar, delivered at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York on March 15, 1928. The text argues that censorship has spread beyond film into American life through legislation, municipal licensing, and court enforcement, and it examines prosecutions of theatrical works. It emphasizes how police power and prosecution practices expand restrictions on public speech, writing, and beliefs, raising constitutional liberty concerns.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryReligion & Spirituality

FormatPDF

Pages21

Reading Time53 min

AccessFree to download

Censorship in the United States

Historical context and expansion of censorship

Legal prosecutions related to stage performances

The New York statute and its consequences

Police power and constitutional liberties

97-84102-4Rosenberg,JamesNaumburg Censorship in the U.S. [New York] [1928] # COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIESPRESERVATION DIVISIONBIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET ORIGINAL MATERIAL AS FILMED-EXISTING BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD -iwM ew 308 Rosenharg,Jeros Natznburg,1874- Z Box 317 Caneorship in the United Statess an address be-forg the i.snociation of the bar of the city ofNew York on Maroh 15,1928,by Janes N.Rosenberg·New York。Cort,press,1928,28 p.23 cm. 363056 RESTRICTIONS ON USE: Reproductions may not be made without permisslon from Columbla UniversityLibraries # TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA FILM SIZE: 35mm 10:/ IMAGE PLACEMENT:IA IIB IB REDUCTION RATIO: DATE FILMED: /9INITIALS: 工 TRACKING\#: SH 4119 FILMED BY PRESERVATION RESOURCES,BETHLEHEM,PA. 500 # CEN8ORSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES AS ADDRESS BEFORE THB AssoCIATION OF THE BAR OF THECIrY oF NEw YOEK ON MARCH 151928 ByJAMES N.RoSENBERG 3208 31 Cy934 eN(tA-3911 hc~m 亚…) Censorship in the United States by James N.Rosenberg of the New York Bar An Address Delivered at the Association of theBar of the City of New York,March 15,1928 Several theatrical performances presented in NewYork a year or 80 ago gave offenseThose who youldhave government regulate not only our conduet,but ourspeech,writing,habits,amusements,opinions,even ourbeliefs,urged a stage censor.They were the same menand women through whom censorship of the films hasspread into American life. That it has 80 spread is plain.Film censorshiplegislation has been attempted in over thirty states,adopted in seven(New York among them)¹;throughmunicipal licensing ordinances²,it operates in over thirtycities,where erudite chiefs of police protect moralsand act as arbiters of taste.Its highly organized pro-ponents have already made six tremendous efforts to forcea Federal Statute.The New York³,Pennsylvania⁶,Kansas⁵,Illinois⁶Courts and the United States Supreme 1 Film censorship was adopted in Pennsylvania(Penn.SesslonLaws(1911)p.1067),Ohlo(103 Ohio Laws(1913),pp.399-401),Kansas(Kansa8 Laws(1913),e.294),Maryland(Md.Laws(1916), e.209),New York(N.Y.LAws(1921),e.715),Florida(Fla.Gen.Laws(1921),e.8523),Virginia(Va,Acts of Assembly(1922),e.257).Connectleut has a specles of censorship in the Tax Comm'r(Connecticut Laws(1925),e.177);as has Ma8sachusetts under LordsDay Observance Provisions(Mas.Gen.Laws(1921),e.136),vestedin the Boston_Comm's of Publle Safety(id.,e 143,552).2 See“Ofcial Censorship Ieglslation"at pp.170,172,of“Annals”of the Amer.Aeademy of Political &Social Science(Nov,1926).See al80 Meaaape Photo Play_v.Bell,100 Mise.267(1917),reversed 179 A.D.13(1917)and Wooda v.GHilchrist,200 A.D.128(1922),ad.233N.Y.p.616. 8Pathe Ezchange Inc.vCobb,236 N.Y.535,affrmlng sansopinion 202 A.D.450(1922). 4Bufalo Branch Mutual Film Corp.v.Breitinger,250 Penn.State225(1915).5Photo Play Corp.v.Board of Reviene,102 Kansas 356(1918). 2 Court⁷have,under the ever spreading chestnut tree ofpolice power,sustained,as constitutional,censorshipstatutes for moving pictures,not of drama alone,but also,be it particularly noted,of news and educational films. Once publie opinion in New York became articulatein opposition to the offending plays,the process of prose-eution through the ordinary channels of the courts wasrapid indeed.Warrants were issued against the playersin and producers of “Virgin Man”,“Sex”and“The Captive”on February 9th,1927On February 17th the defendants in the“Virgin Man”case were held for trial;they pleaded not guilty.But the show closed.On March21st they were tried.On March 28th all but one werefound guilty.“The Captive”was voluntarily withdrawnthree days after the issuance of warrants.In the caseof the play“Sex”,a jury trial was granted to the defend-ants.On March 28th they were tried.On Apri

FAQs

Who delivered the address and when?

The address was delivered by James N. Rosenberg of the New York Bar on March 15, 1928 at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

How does the document describe the growth of censorship in the United States?

It describes censorship spreading through film censorship legislation, municipal licensing ordinances, and repeated efforts to enact federal legislation, alongside expanded applications to theater.

What legal actions and cases does the address reference?

It recounts prosecutions tied to specific stage plays, including warrants, trial outcomes, and the closure or withdrawal of performances, highlighting how quickly courts and prosecutors acted.

Sep 21, 2026

Upload by Jiven