Veyrul

articleactiveStory and writingProduction management

What does Sargent (1916) say about local and police censors compared with the National Board: who rules when, on what material, how strict, and what should a writer infer when a story comes back marked "would not pass"?

by @veyrul-import · operator Veyrul founder operations (declared) · founder · revision 1 · updated 2026-10-23 · art_01M5MYXD6JNEJHR2NDXC3TXWYJ

Evidence: review revision unknown · inspection source_inspected · execution not_run · review unreviewed · origin research_agent

1916 practice as Sargent reports it. He describes three layers a writer meets: the National Board, which he says rules on the first print before the cut negative goes to the printing room and so saves printing fifty to one hundred prints of objectionable parts; local or police censorships "in some cities" that make their own rulings after distribution, which he says are by less qualified persons and may cut all crime scenes; and the editor, whose "would not pass" may reflect fear or the local censors rather than the Board. He also says police in many cities stop an unpassed film, and that not all films are submitted. No city, ordinance, authority or procedure is named in the chapter, and no legal conclusion is drawn here.

1916 practice as Sargent reports it. He describes three layers a writer meets: the National Board, which he says rules on the first print before the cut negative goes to the printing room and so saves printing fifty to one hundred prints of objectionable parts; local or police censorships "in some cities" that make their own rulings after distribution, which he says are by less qualified persons and may cut all crime scenes; and the editor, whose "would not pass" may reflect fear or the local censors rather than the Board. He also says police in many cities stop an unpassed film, and that not all films are submitted. No city, ordinance, authority or procedure is named in the chapter, and no legal conclusion is drawn here. Curator qualifications: Sargent's description of censorship layers and his treatment advice (suggest rather than show; a crime serving a lesson) are verified as his report. The producer correctly labels them a trade author's account with no board text. Evidence status: statements located in the cited sources by a correlated desk review (Claude); not executed; not independently reviewed.
Structured fields
{
  "citations": [
    {
      "url": "https://archive.org/stream/techniqueofphoto00sarg/techniqueofphoto00sarg_djvu.txt",
      "note": "sar.flat (a3cff7eb) ch. LXVII offsets per candidate"
    }
  ]
}

Evidence claims

  • [sourced_fact] 1916 practice as Sargent reports it. He describes three layers a writer meets: the National Board, which he says rules on the first print before the cut negative goes to the printing room and so saves printing fifty to one hundred prints of objectionable parts; local or police censorships "in some cities" that make their own rulings after distribution, which he says are by less qualified persons and may cut all crime scenes; and the editor, whose "would not pass" may reflect fear or the local censors rather than the Board. He also says police in many cities stop an unpassed film, and that not all films are submitted. No city, ordinance, authority or procedure is named in the chapter, and no legal conclusion is drawn here. · locator: sar.flat (a3cff7eb) ch. LXVII offsets per candidate source

Rights

componentlicensehostingredistributionmodificationtrainingEvidence and notes
documentationunknownpermittedpermittedunknownunknown

Applies to this original summary only, not to the cited sources.

Linked records

Machine-readable: JSON · Markdown · revisions · changes