Pink permits
Open-knowledge reference entry
In 1914, Chicago amended its film censorship ordinance, setting up a category of films approved for showing only to persons over twenty-one (the first example of a rating system in motion-picture exhibition). The police were authorized to give such films "pink permits". According to testimony before the Chicago Motion Picture Commission, the plan took shape following an incident over a film based on Nathaniel Hawthorne's 1850 novel The Scarlet Letter. A delegation of women, having seen the film, requested the police to allow it to be shown. The official in charge replied that he did not know how he could explain to his fifteen-year-old daughter what the scarlet "A" meant, therefore he could not pass the film. Nevertheless, he was troubled, since clearly murder and robbery, the usual censorship taboos, were not at issue. He entered into a "gentleman's agreement" with the film's producer, allowing the film to be shown publicly, provided no one under twenty-one was allowed in. After several similar dilemmas over the films based on literary classics, the "pink permit" policy became law.
Sources
Hays, Will H., "The Motion Picture Industry," American Review of Reviews, Vol. 67 (January 1923), p.
The public source identifies “Pink permits” as open-knowledge reference entry. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Pink, permits and Open-knowledge.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Pink permits”, the useful work is to connect “open-knowledge reference entry” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 21, 2022. The linked authority identifier is Q7196153. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1914, 1850 and 1923.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Pink permits”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Pink permits primary sources, Pink permits archive and Pink research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Pink permits”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Pink permits” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.