"It cannot be put out of view that the exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit, like other spectacles, not to be regarded, nor intended to be regarded by the Ohio Constitution, we think, as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public opinion."

In 1915, the United States Supreme Court held that motion pictures were not entitled to any constitutional protection under the First Amendment

—this Court said as to motion pictures: "... They take their attraction from the general interest, eager and wholesome it may be, in their subjects, but a prurient interest may be excited and appealed to...."

—it was deemed necessary to find that the terms' educational, moral, amusing or harmless' do not leave'decision to arbitrary judgment'.

—at p. 242, 59 L. Ed. 552, 559, the court recognized that a prurient interest may be excited and appealed to by motion pictures.

On the ground that the exhibition of motion pictures is a "business pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit."

We have recognized that the legislature may delegate discretion to an administrative officer to determine the specifics of how a statute is to be enforced, but " `[t] he legislature must declare the policy of the law and fix the legal principles which are to control in given cases.'"

—movies were purely business undertakings and in no sense related to the press, it was specifically disapproved in Joseph Burstyn, Inc.

For a time, our Court did permit broad censorship of movies because of their capacity to be "used for evil