Virginia State Board of Censors

"[8] This original board would later be abolished then reinstated under the department of law, supervised by the attorney general, but censors remained governor appointed.

When reviewing films that were particularly controversial, the board sometimes brought in other members of the community to help pass judgment, such public health officials or lawyers.

[13] The state's legislators believed that sexuality portrayed in films was a potentially dangerous force that threatened racial traditions, economic stability, and the marital bond.

[16] Members of the Board of Censors followed a mandate which, as stated in an annual report, "scrutinized with particular care all films which touch upon the relations existing between whites and blacks.

[18] In the face of the Racial Integrity Act and a film censorship board, Virginia became a leader in the South for its enhanced progressive image.

[25] The Virginia Board of Censors would specifically make sure only stereotypical African American images, such as maids, butlers, and criminals would be portrayed in movies.

"[26] The board's response to Micheaux's films provides a glimpse of their larger administrative agenda of managing race relations under a code of white paternalism and a strict racial etiquette.

[29] The board's specific objections to A Son of Satan stemmed from images of miscegenation and race riots, as well as scenes which caused "blurring of racial lines in public spaces such as dance halls.

"[30] After paying a fine, making some cuts, and a great deal of confrontation with the members of the board, namely Chesterman, Micheaux's film was eventually licensed to be shown in Virginia.

[1] Educational films such The Miracle of Life and Girls of the Underworld depicted stories of contraception and the consequences of venereal disease, respectively, and they were both rejected "in toto" by the board for their dramatic portrayals of what were considered sexual taboos.

[36] In 1952 the U.S. Supreme Court placed movies under First Amendment protection in the ruling of Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, reversing a decision that stood since 1915 and thus overturning any film censorship case to come after.

[37] However, some states raised the debate whether censorship was a question of prior restraint, or free speech, and some boards carried on censoring while working through the appeals process.