Censoring of a Baby: Opposition to Birth of a Baby in print and film

On April 11, 1938 Life magazine published a series of thirty-five pictures entitled Birth of a Baby given to editor Roy Larsen by the American Committee on Maternal Welfare.1 Larsen and the Committee intended for the pictures, in conjunction with a film of the same title, to educate the American public about child birth. Their hope was to reduce the high rate of maternal mortality during childbirth. Despite this laudable purpose, for years both the film and the magazine article came under heavy censorship by religious and secular authorities. These authorities generally declared the film, the magazine article, or both to be obscene and therefore subject to the vast network of both informal and formal censorship that existed in the late 1930s.

Catholic Censorship of the Film and Magazine

In 1938, Catholic police officials in Boston, St. Louis, Chicago, New Orleans, and the state of Pennsylvania pressured magazine distributors to not deliver the April 11 edition of Life magazine.2Catholic public officials found the images to be obscene. In the words of Bronx District Attorney Samuel J. Foley, the images were, “a flagrant offence against good taste.” Police impounded magazines, arrested those who sold them, and went so far as to prosecute Larsen.3 Larsen was unanimously acquitted, though the magazines were not returned to the shelves.

Roy Larsen and Life magazine were seemingly aware that their publications of stills from the film would engender opposition. On April 4, the magazine distributed a letter to their subscribers warning them about the upcoming pictures. The letter described the purpose of the film, why the magazine felt compelled to call attention to them, and endorsements from various people. Further, the company sent additional letters to Protestant religious leaders, salesmen, and others giving them advance notice of the images.

The film met opposition from private groups, too, with the Roman Catholic Legion of Decency of New York declaring the film, “unsuited for entertainment and inappropriate for general theatrical exhibition.”4 Their opposition delayed the premier of the film in New York until March of 1942.

State Censorship of the Film

In January 1939, Dominion Theatres, which operated several movie theaters in Lynchburg, Virginia, secured the rights to show the film “The Birth of a Baby.”5 Despite taking the precaution of previewing the film to important officials in the city, the company still found itself the target of a local obscenity statute. The company had already received approval from the Virginia Division of Motion Picture Censorship to show the film, and so appealed to a local court asking that the film be shown in the city. When the lower court ruled in favor of the company and the movie, Lynchburg appealed the case to the Virginia Supreme Court.

In the court, the matter revolved around the authority of the City of Lynchburg to censor the film, given the state statute empowering the Division of Motion Picture Censorship to allow films to be shown in the state. The city contended that they had the authority to provide additional oversight of the film industry in the same way that they might supplement state requirements on gasoline or food safety. They further pointed out that the Division of Motion Picture Censorship had not initially approved the film, but had only done so after the Circuit Court in Richmond had ordered them to approve it. The Supreme Court was not impressed by these arguments, replying that supplemental rules applying to gasoline or food could have justifications not pertinent to movie censorship. Further the court argued that the law that led to the creation of the Division of Motion Picture Censorship was intended to replace the patchwork of local censorship laws which had existed previously.

Conclusion

No doubt, there was additional censorship of the film and magazine article by authorities elsewhere, however, additional information online is not forthcoming. Still, I think the information gathered here is useful for making at least one conclusion about the event. The opposition of private groups and the opposition of government agencies were mutually supporting. Both government and private opposition was present, though it seems there was more government involvement than private involvement. I would have liked to know more about the opposition to these efforts, though it is hard to determine the extent to which anti-censorship efforts were successful. I am sure additional sources out there would be able to shed light on this; and I will be looking out for them.