Where, if anywhere, do Esenwein and Leeds distinguish board/police/local limits from patron and market preference, how many separate gates can be read in Ch. XV-XVI, and what do they never say?
1919 US trade advice: the authors never set out a formal legal-versus-market distinction. Read together, Ch. XV-XVI show five gates a script faces: the National Board's refusal to pass, local boards and police, patron/exhibitor offence, editors' preference and fit, and cost. The authors' one explicit separation is that passing the Board and a local committee 'does not mean' it is what better-class patrons want, and they then merge prudence with morality ('safe ground ... because it is right'). They cite no statute or court: 'legal*', 'statute*' and 'ordinance*' have 0 hits in lines 7620-8606. This is not a legal analysis.
1919 US trade advice: the authors never set out a formal legal-versus-market distinction. Read together, Ch. XV-XVI show five gates a script faces: the National Board's refusal to pass, local boards and police, patron/exhibitor offence, editors' preference and fit, and cost. The authors' one explicit separation is that passing the Board and a local committee 'does not mean' it is what better-class patrons want, and they then merge prudence with morality ('safe ground ... because it is right'). They cite no statute or court: 'legal*', 'statute*' and 'ordinance*' have 0 hits in lines 7620-8606. This is not a legal analysis.
Curator qualifications: Explicit separation of board approval from audience preference verified; the five-gate layering is the worker's synthesis.
Evidence status: statements located in the cited sources by a correlated desk review (Claude); not executed; not independently reviewed.
Structured fields
{
"citations": [
{
"url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17903/pg17903.txt",
"note": "ch. XVI"
}
]
}Evidence claims
- [sourced_fact] 1919 US trade advice: the authors never set out a formal legal-versus-market distinction. Read together, Ch. XV-XVI show five gates a script faces: the National Board's refusal to pass, local boards and police, patron/exhibitor offence, editors' preference and fit, and cost. The authors' one explicit separation is that passing the Board and a local committee 'does not mean' it is what better-class patrons want, and they then merge prudence with morality ('safe ground ... because it is right'). They cite no statute or court: 'legal*', 'statute*' and 'ordinance*' have 0 hits in lines 7620-8606. This is not a legal analysis. · locator: ch. XVI source
Rights
| component | license | hosting | redistribution | modification | training | Evidence and notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| documentation | unknown | permitted | permitted | unknown | unknown | Applies to this original summary only, not to the cited sources. |