in support of free expression
The information presented here by the National
Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) may be freely redistributed in its entirety,
provided that readers are informed that the information was obtained from
NCAC's World Wide Web site and that credit is given to the appropriate source
of whatever information is used. Permission is expressly granted for the information
obtained to be made available for file transfer from installations offering
unrestricted anonymous file transfer on the Internet. Information found here
may not be sold for profit or incorporated in commercial documents without
the written permission from the National Coalition Against Censorship.
©Copyright 2005 NCAC
WEB DESIGN
Jeanne Criscola Criscola Design
free speech first amendment censorship
|
|
|
|
| CASE
NAME: |
Joseph
Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson |
| CITATION: |
343
U.S. 495 (1952) |
| Topics: |
Blasphemy;
Film |
|
In
1950, the New York State Board of Regents, pursuant
to a New York statute (See McKinney's N. Y. Laws,
1947, Education Law, § 122) that expressly
permitted the banning of motion picture films on
certain grounds, rescinded Joseph Burstyn’s
license to distribute his film entitled "The
Miracle" because it was, in their determination,
“sacrilegious”. Burstyn brought an action
claiming that this statute was unconstitutional
because it violated his First
Amendment right of free speech and free press.
The Court agreed with Burstyn’s claim, concluding
that a statute permitting prior
restraint upon religious views is unconstitutional.
The Court reasoned that motion pictures are a significant
medium for the communication of ideas and are therefore
protected by the First Amendment. Specifically,
the court held that
…the state has no legitimate interest
in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful
to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints
upon the expression of those views. It is not the
business of government in our nation to suppress
real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious
doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches,
or motion pictures…We hold only that under
the First and Fourteenth Amendments a state may
not ban a film on the basis of a censor’s
conclusion that it is “sacrilegious.”
Furthermore, the Court rejected the defendant’s
argument that motion pictures do not fall within
the protection of the First Amendment because their
production, distribution, and exhibition is a business
conducted for private profit. On the contrary, the
Court reasoned that just because motion pictures-
like books, newspapers, and magazines- are published
and sold for profit does not prevent them from being
a form of expression whose liberty is safeguarded
by the First Amendment. |
|
Significance: |
This
case reveals how prior restraints are particularly
suspect under the First Amendment, as they prevent
speech from ever reaching the public in the first
place. In the 1931 landmark case Near v. Minnesota
(283 U.S. 697 1931), where a Minnesota law disallowing
the publication of anything malicious, scandalous
or defamatory was found to be unconstitutional,
the court held that there is a strong presumption
against prior restraints. The Court reasoned that
it can be dangerous to prevent speech from ever
reaching the public. Subsequently prohibiting
or punishing unprotected speech after it reaches
the public better serves the First Amendment.
As such, there is less danger that protected speech
will never be communicated. |
|
| These
materials are not intended, and should not be used, as
legal advice. They necessarily contain generalizations
that are not applicable in all jurisdictions or circumstances.
Moreover, court decisions may be superceded by subsequent
rulings, and may be subject to alternative interpretations.
Corrections, clarification, and additions are welcome.
Please send to ncac@ncac.org. |
|
Action Alerts
» National
» Eastern
» Central
» Mountain
» Pacific
» email alert sign-up
» report censorship!
|
