# Hayes Code
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763
**Category:** Cafe Society
**Created:** [August 13, 2004, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763 "2004-08-13T23:19:46Z")
**Posts on this page:** 16
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@vl\_mungo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vl_mungo)
#### Post date: [August 13, 2004, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763/1 "2004-08-13T23:19:46Z")
I was recently watching a terrible, yet entertaining Z-Movie from 1961 called [The Choppers](http://imdb.com/title/tt0054744/). In it there was a depiction of police officers being shot, and presumably killed. I had always understood that this was a violation of [The Hayes Code](http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html) (although it is not specifically referred to in that text). So, I’m curious, would anybody know what was the first post-Hayes Code depiction of the killing of a police officer?
How about other firsts? I know Otto Preminger had a lot to do with undermining the Hayes Code.
---
### Author:  [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2004, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763/2 "2004-08-14T00:56:34Z")
I don’t believe it was a violation of the Code to depict a policeman being murdered. The Code required that the murderer be punished and the crime not be glorified or depicted in such a way as to inspire imitation (although how difficult it would be for an audience to figure out that the gun the thug was holding led somehow to the bullet hole in the cop’s chest is an open question).
---
### Author:  [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2004, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763/3 "2004-08-14T01:00:01Z")
> [@Otto](#):
>
> and the crime not be glorified or depicted in such a way as to inspire imitation (although how difficult it would be for an audience to figure out that the gun the thug was holding led somehow to the bullet hole in the cop’s chest is an open question).
I think “to inspire imitation” in this case means, “to make other people want to do it.”
---
### Author:  [@tanstaafl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tanstaafl)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2004, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763/4 "2004-08-14T01:51:16Z")
And, to confirm my geek status, I came into this thread expecting to comment on the AT command set… :smack:
---
### Author:  [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2004, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763/5 "2004-08-14T03:20:52Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#):
>
> I think “to inspire imitation” in this case means, “to make other people want to do it.”
In part, but the Code also specified that crimes couldn’t be shown in a way as to let the viewer figure out how they were done. That’s what I was refering to.
---
### Author:  [@richardb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/richardb)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2004, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763/6 "2004-08-14T03:38:39Z")
My immediate impression of the answer here is that The Hayes Code was not a legal requirement, it was a movie-industry self-censorship agreement.
Instead of relying on my impressions, however, I figured I’d do a bit of searching. Here’s a quote from the first ond only site I clicked on from the Google list, that seems like an informative site giving [A Brief History of Movie Ratings](http://www.psvratings.com/history-of-movie-ratings.html):
> [@](#):
>
> The Hays Production Code remained in place until the mid-1960’s. By then, social values had dramatically changed and the code was considered out of step with the times.
Among three major issues the site points out as affecting this in the 60’s, is the fact that
> [@](#):
>
> the MGM studio was preparing to release the Michelangelo Antonioni film “Blow-Up.” This was the first time a major distributor attempted to market a film containing actual nudity. However, the Production Code Administration in California denied giving the film their standard Hays Production Code seal of approval. To go around this, MGM decided to distribute the film through a subsidiary company, effectively disregarding the voluntary agreement that MPAA member companies would not distribute films without the seal of approval. The MPAA realized that it now had to determine how to deal with a serious breakdown in their self-regulation policy.
So this was a voluntary system (much like the ratings are today. You don’t have to have your movie rated, although you will suffer economic consequences as some theaters will not play unrated movies and some newspapers will not advertize them.)
The movie you mention just may not have been done by “a major studio,” and independent studios and producers were essentially free to distribute movies containing whatever they wanted, provided they could find theaters willing to play them, and providing they did not “violate community standards” enough that some local DA would file obsenity charges against them.
It reminds me of that “comic code seal” that used to be on comic books, until Marvel ventured beyond the accepted standards once or twice, and found they could sell plenty of copies even without the seal of approval. Actually, it’s been a while since I’ve looked at a comic book cover; they don’t have those comic authority seals any more, do they?
---
### Author:  [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2004, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763/7 "2004-08-14T07:41:23Z")
> [@richardb](#):
>
> Actually, it’s been a while since I’ve looked at a comic book cover; they don’t have those comic authority seals any more, do they?
It’s still around, but Marvel doesn’t follow it at all anymore. They use their own rating system.
I think DC uses it, more or less. I don’t think it’s a big deal for them if they want to publish something without it, these days.
---
### Author:  [@Kaitlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaitlyn)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2004, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763/8 "2004-08-14T08:13:24Z")
DC still submits most of their core universe titles to the Comics Code Authority, but they’re just about the only ones still doing so. The CCA has, however, lost nearly all of it’s power to regulate content in any meaningful way. Marvel stopped submitting books years ago, replacing it with their own rating system. DC and Marvel both have special imprints for books intended for mature audiences, and there is a DC imprint book or two (Outsiders and JLA Elite, for example) that don’t carry the CCA symbol.
Other companies pretty much ignore the CCA. Crossgen, Image, and Dark Horse all ignore it completely.
---
### Author:  [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2004, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763/9 "2004-08-14T12:41:12Z")
And somewhere Fredric Wertham is rolling in his grave…
---
### Author:  [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2004, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763/10 "2004-08-14T12:48:28Z")
> [@](#):
>
> In part, but the Code also specified that crimes couldn’t be shown in a way as to let the viewer figure out how they were done. That’s what I was refering to.
Accepting was part of the Hayes CodeI don’t think it could possibly have meant not letting the viewer “figure out” that a gun shot can be fatal. I think that referred to showing people a detailed plan of how to rob a bank, or instructions on picking locks, for instance. There were plenty of films during the 40s and 50s where someone picks a lock, but you don’t see a close-up of what the tools look like or how it’s done.
---
### Author:  [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2004, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763/11 "2004-08-14T14:42:52Z")
> [@tanstaafl](#):
>
> And, to confirm my geek status, I came into this thread expecting to comment on the AT command set… :smack:
You’re not the only one. :smack:
---
### Author:  [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2004, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763/12 "2004-08-14T15:08:36Z")
As pointed out above, the Hayes code was not a law. There were independents that accepted pariah status and made unapproved movies all through the Hayes period. I guess the question would be “what was the first movie released by a mainstream studio without the Hayes seal of approval?”. **richardb** covered that pretty well.
---
### Author:  [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763/13 "2004-08-14T15:30:40Z")
> [@twickster](#):
>
> And somewhere Fredric Wertham is rolling in his grave…
Actually, I remember reading that Wertham didn’t approve of the Comics Code. He didn’t want to see comics stripped of violence or sexuality…he just didn’t want violent or sexual comics sold or marketed to children.
And here’s a copy of the Hays Code:
[http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html](http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html)
---
### Author:  [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)
#### Post date: [August 14, 2004, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763/14 "2004-08-14T23:33:56Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#):
>
> Actually, I remember reading that Wertham didn’t approve of the Comics Code. He didn’t want to see comics stripped of violence or sexuality…he just didn’t want violent or sexual comics sold or marketed to children.
[Fredric Wertham - Anti-Comics Crusader Who Turned Advocate](http://art-bin.com/art/awertham.html). And [the comics code itself.](http://www.onceuponadime.com/hist/comicscode.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> And here’s a copy of the Hays Code:
>
> [http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html](http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html)
Some highlights…
> [@Hays Code](#):
>
> b. Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures and gestures, are not to be shown.
> […]
> Miscegenation (sex relationships between the white and black races) is forbidden.
> […]
> VII. Dances
>
> 1. Dances suggesting or representing sexual actions or indecent passions are forbidden.
>
> 2. Dances which emphasize indecent movements are to be regarded as obscene.
>
> VIII. Religion
>
> 1. No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.
>
> 2. Ministers of religion in their character as ministers of religion should not be used as comic characters or as villains.
> […]
> IX. Locations
> Certain places are so closely and thoroughly associated with sexual life or with sexual sin that their use must be carefully limited.
:eek: :rolleyes:
---
### Author:  [@vl\_mungo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vl_mungo)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2004, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763/15 "2004-08-15T01:11:22Z")
From the Comic Code
> [@](#):
>
> 1. Instances of law enforcement officers dying as a result of a criminal’s activities should be discouraged.
This is probably what I was thinking of.
---
### Author:  [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2004, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hayes-code/259763/16 "2004-08-15T19:00:53Z")
> [@Lumpy](#):
>
> I guess the question would be “what was the first movie released by a mainstream studio without the Hayes seal of approval?”. **richardb** covered that pretty well.
Ah, but the point was that _Blowup_ was _not_ released by a mainstream studio: MGM delegated it to a subsidiary that was not an MPAA member.
Earlier features released by major studios without the MPAA Production Code Administration’s seal of approval:
[_The Outlaw_](http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0036241/combined) (1943), one of only two pictures directed by Howard Hughes, whose own flim company initially distributed it in 1943 after 20th Century-Fox backed out of distribution rather than face a $25,000 fine from the PCA; distributed in 1946 by United Artists, which was a major studio but at the time was not a member of the MPAA. PCA chief Joseph Breen wrote in 1941 about _The Outlaw_: “…in my more than ten years of critical examination of motion pictures, I have never seen anything quite so unacceptable as the shots of the breasts of the character of Rio [played by Jane Russell] …Throughout almost half the picture the girl’s breasts, which are quite large and prominent, are shockingly emphasized…”
[_The Moon Is Blue_](http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0046094/combined) (1953), in which playboys William Holden and David Niven compete to claim a young woman’s virginity. The PCA’s Breen concluded in 1953 that the film script was “unapprovable,” and added that it reflected an “unacceptably light attitude towards seduction, illicit sex, chastity and virginity,” among other things. The PCA later changed its mind, and _The Moon Is Blue_ received a PCA seal of approval in 1961.
[_The Man With the Golden Arm_](http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0048347/combined) (1955), with Frank Sinatra as a jazz musician turned heroin addict. Like the previous two movies, it was distributed by United Artists without the PCA’s approval; and like _The Moon Is Blue_, the PCA later approved it in 1961.
P.S. It’s spelled Hays, without an “e”.