Motion Picture Appeal Bd. of City of Chicago v. S. K. Films
| Decision Date | 22 September 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1,78-1 |
| Citation | 382 N.E.2d 103,65 Ill.App.3d 217,21 Ill.Dec. 809 |
| Parties | , 21 Ill.Dec. 809 MOTION PICTURE APPEAL BOARD OF the CITY OF CHICAGO, and John F. Cusack, Ner Littner, Mrs. Juliet McNamara, Mrs. Norman Gerlach and Matthew Schoenbaum, as Members of the Motion Picture Appeal Board of the City of Chicago, Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. S. K. FILMS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
William R. Quinlay, Corp. Counsel, Chicago (Daniel R. Pascale and Robert Retke, Asst. Corp. Counsels, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees.
Plaintiffs, the Motion Picture Appeal Board of the City of Chicago and its members (hereinafter "the Board"), brought this action pursuant to section 155-7.2 of the Municipal Code of Chicago, to enjoin defendant, S. K. Films, from showing a film entitled "The First Nudie Musical" in Chicago theaters to persons under the age of 18 years. Following a trial in the circuit court of Cook County, the injunction was issued and defendant appealed.
On appeal, defendant contends that: (1) the Chicago motion picture exhibition ordinance does not meet due process requirements in that the Board is not required to state its reasons for refusal of a permit; (2) the trial court committed reversible error by excluding defendant's evidence of community standards, especially by refusing to allow evidence of other films that the city had allowed to be shown to general audiences; (3) the Chicago motion picture exhibition ordinance is unconstitutional as applied; (4) the ordinance sets a standard not allowed by the Illinois supreme court; (5) it was error not to take judicial notice of the quality and reputation of the actors and actresses in the film; and (6) the decision of the trial court was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm. The pertinent facts follow.
The Chicago motion picture exhibition ordinance (Municipal Code of Chicago, ch. 155, pars. 1 through 7.4) sets out standards and procedures for the public showing of movie films. Section 155-1 of the ordinance provides that all films to be shown to audiences composed solely of persons 18 years of age or older may be exhibited without inspection or permit. It further provides that if a film is intended to be shown to the general public, it may be shown only following the issuance of a permit by the superintendent of police. Permits are granted after a written application is submitted to the superintendent of police and the film has been viewed by the superintendent or the Film Review Section created by the ordinance. Section 155-2.
Section 155-5 states in pertinent part:
"Obscene when viewed by children" and "violent when viewed by children" are then defined in the ordinance.
The ordinance also provides for a Motion Picture Appeal Board to review films upon the refusal of a permit and to consider the arguments of the owner, agent or exhibitor in support of the exhibition of the film. (Section 155-7.1.) If the Board affirms the refusal of the permit, it must file an action to enjoin the showing of the film to general audiences. Section 155-7.2.
Defendant applied for a permit to exhibit a motion picture entitled "The First Nudie Musical" (hereinafter "the film") to general audiences. The film was viewed on November 22, 1977, by the Film Review Section of the Chicago Police Department, which refused to issue the permit. Defendants appealed to the Motion Picture Appeal Board. On November 25, 1977, the Board screened the film and conducted a hearing at which defendant was represented by Sidney Kaplan as its agent. The Board voted to affirm the decision denying the permit to show the film to anyone under the age of 18 years and filed its action for injunction on November 30, 1977. On December 6, 1977, the trial court held a hearing and viewed the film, which was entered into evidence.
Matthew Schoenbaum, a member of the Board, testified for plaintiffs. He is a licensed attorney who also has a Master of Science Degree from the Catholic University in Washington, D. C. Schoenbaum's professional experience included extensive work with children. He dealt with emotionally disturbed and delinquent children Schoenbaum had been associated with the Board for about seven years. Prior to the amendment of the ordinance, he saw every film denied a license by the Film Review Section, whether the movie was intended for adults or children. Since the amendment of the ordinance to concern itself with children, approximately two years prior to the hearing, he had seen 20 to 25 films per year on review to the Board.
[21 Ill.Dec. 812] for the Children's Bureau and the Board of Education in Washington, D. C. In Chicago, he was director of court services for the Archdiocesan Holy Name Society and covered children's courts in that capacity. He was Dean of the School of Social Work at Loyola University for 25 years, continuing his interest in children and being involved in programs concerning them. Schoenbaum's law practice also continues to keep him in contact with children's agencies.
Schoenbaum stated that the film is obscene with respect to children. He believed that the film could have a harmful impact on children because they are a vulnerable group, are not sexually adjusted and have a tendency to mimic what they see on the screen. He did not believe the movie would be obscene to adults.
On cross-examination Schoenbaum testified that the Board sees movies only upon appeal from the Film Review Section's denial of a general audience permit. He also stated that the City of Chicago has no classifications for films other than the unrestricted general audience and adults only categories. Questions regarding whether or not Schoenbaum had seen certain other films were objected to by the Board's counsel, and the court sustained objections to a question about whether a permit had ever been denied to a major motion picture producer. Schoenbaum also testified that the Board had overruled the Film Review Section on several occasions although he could not specifically recall the films involved.
Schoenbaum agreed with defense counsel that one of the factors considered by the Board in its review of the instant case was that the subject matter of the film was the making of a pornographic movie. Other factors, Schoenbaum stated, were that the language was arduous and that the film contained simulated sexual intercourse, so that as a whole the film met the ordinance's "obscene when viewed by children" standard.
The first witness called by defendant was Dr. Joseph Mehr, who has a doctoral degree in clinical psychology from the Illinois Institute of Technology. Dr. Mehr served an internship at Chicago State Hospital in 1964, and currently is the chief psychologist at the Elgin Health Center. He also has a private practice, in which he sees adults, families and children. He has participated in many training workshops and seminars, including workshops involving work with children.
Dr. Mehr testified that in his opinion the film does not appeal to the prurient interest of teenagers and that it contains nothing patently offensive to teenagers. He also believed that the film would not be harmful to anyone from the age of four years on up, although someone that young would probably not understand the film. The element of humor in the film is important, he testified, and he found nothing in the film to be personally offensive. Dr. Mehr said that while some people may find the language in the film to be offensive, the language used is common among teenagers. He believed that it could be a positive experience for a teenager to see the film in the company of a parent or guardian, and added that he felt no difficulties would result if a child were to see the film without an adult.
Objections to questions seeking to compare two books with the film were sustained on the grounds of irrelevancy, and the books were not allowed into evidence. Dr. Mehr further testified that he was acquainted with certain programs appearing on public television in Chicago and containing scenes of frontal nudity and "street language," and that he did not consider such programs to be "unhealthy." He also stated that certain movies with a great deal of violence are "very, very offensive" and can cause more problems to children than the film in question.
On cross-examination, Dr. Mehr testified that there was nothing in the film that would appeal to the prurient interest of an average adult or adolescent, including a 10-year-old child. He stated that the film has social value in that it injects humor into sexuality and nudity and that it gives an adolescent or adult an opportunity to see the kinds of people involved in making pornographic films, although the film does not provide a positive role model for adolescents.
Dr. Mehr believed that most adolescents would understand that the film is a satirical comedy, but he also felt that not all children under the age of 18 years could understand the film. He further stated that the film was less likely to provide a positive experience for an adolescent if it was seen without adult supervision, and that it would be better if a child or adolescent could discuss the film with a parent after seeing it.
Sidney Kaplan, who operates the defendant company, testified that defendant distributes films in the Chicago, Illinois and Milwaukee, Wisconsin areas, extending into southern Illinois and small parts of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carrizales v. Rheem Mfg. Co., Inc.
...196) nor are they generally known to well-informed persons in the community. Motion Picture Appeal Bd. v. S.K. Films (1st Dist.1978), 65 Ill.App.3d 217, 21 Ill.Dec. 809, 382 N.E.2d In rebuttal, defendant cites Bellomy v. Bruce (3rd Dist.1939), 303 Ill.App. 349, 25 N.E.2d 428, where the cour......
-
People v. Hart
... ... to the public three allegedly obscene films which were located in an adult book store at 322 ... six [101 Ill.App.3d 344] issues in this appeal. We find reversible error occurred in two ... The defendant's motion for a directed verdict was denied and she ... accord with the community standards of the City of Moline. The city presented the testimony of ... In City of Chicago v. Geraci, 46 Ill.2d 576, 264 N.E.2d 153, where ... the purportedly offending motion picture film into evidence, even though none of the ... ...
-
Moline Sch. Dist. No. 40 Bd. of Educ. v. Quinn
...(West 2014). Courts cannot take judicial notice of facts that are “doubtful or uncertain” (Motion Picture Appeal Board v. S.K. Films, 65 Ill.App.3d 217, 226, 21 Ill.Dec. 809, 382 N.E.2d 103 (1978) (quoting 403 Ill.Dec. 69654 N.E.3d 837 Sproul v. Springman, 316 Ill. 271, 279, 147 N.E. 131 (1......
-
People v. Jackson
... ... Chicago (Michael Pelletier, Deputy Defender, and Henrik ... On appeal, defendant challenges the constitutionality of ... after the circuit court denied defendant's motion for a directed finding, defendant testified on ... picture magazines involved in the sales here [were] not ... "); Motion Picture Appeal Board of the City of Chicago v. S.K. Films, 65 Ill.App.3d 217, ... ...