My Panic Attack Solution

D.W. Griffith’s 1915 film “The Birth of a Nation,” the very first-ever Hollywood blockbuster, illustrates a present-day political issue which brings into apparent conflict two popular values: the desire to protect minority social groups from persecution, and the desire to protect freedom of expression.

Based on a novel and play entitled “The Clansman,” Griffith’s film is credited with having provoked riots in several cities, including Boston and Philadelphia, in which gangs of whites, apparently inspired by the deeply racist point of view of the film, attacked blacks. A white man in Lafayette, Indiana murdered a black teenager after viewing the film. In response to the outbreaks of violence and unrest, and at the urging of the NAACP, many cities actually banned the showing of the film. The KKK, which had been relatively quiescent for many years, enjoyed a complete rebirth with a tremendous surge in membership and a nationwide spread that reached a peak of public prominence in a huge Washington march during the 1920’s.

The film, itself, contains a written announcement denying any racist intent:

“This is an historical presentation of the Civil War and Reconstruction Period, and is not meant to reflect on any race or people of today.”

The actual content of the film is blatantly racist, however, and gives the lie to the studio’s apparent attempt at misdirection similar to misleading descriptions of today’s films that are sometimes put forward by studios. It would appear from the film’s plot that the main interest of reconstruction-era blacks was the disenfranchisement of whites and the defilement of white womanhood.

In one example, a black union soldier first proposes marriage to a white girl and then pursues her through the woods when she refuses his advances. Cornered by the lascivious black at the top of a precipice, she leaps to her death rather than allow him to even approach her. The soldier is then hunted down and executed by the KKK. In another example, the “mulatto” governor locks a white woman in his office and attempts to force her to marry him. The KKK, alerted to her plight, rides in full regalia to her rescue, scattering “rioting negroes” in the process.

The US Supreme Court supported the right of governmental censorship boards to ban the public screening of certain films in “Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission (1915),” in which the court found that:

“It cannot be put out of view that the exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit, like other spectacles, not to be regarded, nor intended to be regarded by the Ohio Constitution, we think, as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public opinion. They are mere representations of events, of ideas and sentiments published and known; vivid, useful, and entertaining, no doubt, but, as we have said, capable of evil, having power for it, the greater because of their attractiveness and manner of exhibition.”

The Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision regarding this matter in 1952.

“Hate crimes” and “hate speech” are present-day legislative issues. “Hate speech” which inspires “hate crimes” may actually lead to criminal prosecution in the future. “The Birth of a Nation” could easily be described as constituting “hate speech,” and the film is generally agreed to have inspired “hate crimes.” The popular value of protecting minority social groups from persecution is thus brought into conflict with the value of protecting free speech.

My own guess is that people today are so throughly opposed to any form of censorship for any reason that they would support “The Birth of a Nation” as protected artistic expression despite whatever undesirable behavior might be exhibited by some people who viewed the film. My experience has been that supporters of free expression say they can’t be held responsible for what other people do. To me, that’s a little like saying if you shout “fire” in a crowded theater, you can’t be responsible if other people unreasonably panic and trample others in a rush to the exits. But maybe I’m wrong.

What is your opinion? If you were transported back to 1915, seeing the results of the public screenings of Griffith’s film, would you say art trumps censorship, or would you say a minority has a greater right to be protected from persecution?
Guys, the question isn’t about how the film would be received now, but about whether governments were right to ban it in 1915.
So, Matthew, if I yell "fire" in a crowded theater, it won’t be my fault if others panic and injuries result?
Dittohead, sorry if it doesn’t appear to you that as much research went into this question as usually goes into questions on Yahoo Politics.

it’s hard to say…

I think there is some social responsibility…

but free speech must be considered…

what’s really scary is how such a movie can be a "hit"