The initial news reports pertaining to "The Tin Drum Fiasco" surfaced on 27 June, 1997 when a news report, reproduced in part here, surfaced on the national media:
Friday June 27 5:06 PM EDT
'Tin Drum' Banned in Oklahoma
OKLAHOMA CITY (Reuter) - An Oklahoma judge's ruling that the 1979 Oscar-winning
German film "The Tin Drum" has scenes of child pornography and is obscene under
state law sparked a bitter dispute over censorship after police seized the film
from video shops and homes.
State District Court Judge Richard Freeman ruled Wednesday and since then Oklahoma police have seized videos of the movie from a local library and six video stores. They also went to the homes of three people who had rented the film and asked them to hand over the tapes."
To better understand "The Tin Drum Fiasco", it is necessary to know something of its "genesis". It began with OCAF's efforts to censor the materials available at the "Metro Library" in Oklahoma City.
The Oklahoma Department of Libraries, a department of Oklahoma State Government, published on its web site, a report detailing OCAF Involvement in The Tin Drum Fiasco. This report provided in extract form by Bubbaworld is very revealing and well worth the time it takes to review it.
As the The Tin Drum Fiasco unfolded, the Oklahoma Department of Libraries web site became a valuable source for additional information, including the following:
[Begin Quote of ODL Web site article]OK County Judge Rules One Scene in The Tin Drum is Obscene
Some news articles had specifically mentioned that "part" of The Tin Drum had been ruled obscene by Judge Freeman, and many librarians were wondering whether the judge had viewed the entire film. A June 27 article in the Journal Record has the answer.
The following is from Journal Record Staff Writer Matt Driskill's article:
Freeman said his Wednesday opinion applies only to the scene that he was shown, not the entire film, a 1979 German-made movie that has won numerous awards in addition to an Oscar.
"The police brought me by a movie with one scene," he said.
"The scene they brought involved what appeared to be a young boy about 6 or 7 and he was having oral sex with a girl who was about 16 in a bath house."By definition of our criminal code, if anyone under 18 or anyone portraying someone under 18 is having sex, it is by definition obscene."
The fascinating aspect of this is that it raises the question:
"Isn't the judge supposed to judge the work as a whole? This as opposed to only one
individual scene from a film which contains numerous scenes and themes."
Another startling bit of information surfaced via the ODL Web Site. It is provided below, by quoting the relevant portions of the ODL Web Site as it existed at the time:
[Begin Quote]
ODL's Questions to the Attorney General
Following Judge Freeman's ruling and the confiscation of video tapes on June 25, ODL Director Robert Clark sent the following questions and requests to the Oklahoma Attorney General:
1. What is the legal process used by the District Attorney to confiscate and destroy public property?
2. We wish for you to secure a copy of the written ruling by Judge Freeman, since this ruling may have impact on all libraries in the State.
3. If Titles can be ruled in violation of state statute without a hearing, where are those rulings and determinations recorded and accumulated?
4. What appellant process is available to a library that is adversely affected by a judicial determination?
5. Under what authority did the District Attorney act when and if the film The Tin Drum is destroyed by his office?
On June 27, this additional question was submitted to the AG's office:
Does O.S. 1024.1 (2) (b, c, and d) (Miller Test) have to be applied before "obscene" is defined for the purpose of O.S. 1024.1 (2) (a)? Note the last three paragraphs (b, c, and d) require materials to lack literary and artistic value among other tests.
By Friday, June 27, the Attorney General's office had informed ODL that the confiscated tapes had not yet been destroyed, and that Judge Freeman had not issued a written ruling.
[end quote]Now, let's pause and reflect on what this means.
First and foremost Judge Freeman did not actually view the movie "The Tin Drum". He was evidently only shown a single scene from that movie. On that basis alone Judge Freeman evidently ruled that the movie itself was obscene under Oklahoma law. However, since the judge did not even bother issuing a "written opinion", let alone holding the "hearing" required by applicable Oklahoma law, how could anyone claim that the movie was legally obscene and how could the Oklahoma City Police Department legally go door to door confiscating copies of the movie from public libraries, video stores and private homes?
We will find the answers to these questions and much more in the subsequent sections. I promise...
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those interested in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.