BURSTYN v. WILSON, 343 U.S. 495, 1952

From Driscollwiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

Burstyn v. Wilson

  • SCOTUS
  • 343 U.S. 495
  • Decided May 26, 1952

Overview

Film is protected by First, Fourteenth, even if it is...

  • Designed to entertain
  • Distributed as a for-profit biz
  • Greater capacity for evil than other media
  • Deemed "sacrilegious" by a censor

Who wrote it?

  • Justice Clark

Facts

  • NY Ed Dept issued a license for The Miracle, an Italian film
  • The film was shown for 8 weeks in NYC
  • NY Board of Regents received "hundreds" of complaints + notes of support
  • Three members reviewed the film and determined there was "a basis for the claim" that it was "sacrilegious"
  • The Regents heard arguments in support of the film but were unconvinced; rescinded the license

Legally important facts

New York had a statute in which ALL films to be screened had to be judged first by a person from the education department. If that person decided that it wasn't objectionable (see below), they'd assign a license:

  • Obscene, indecent, immoral, inhuman, sacrilegious, "its exhibition would ... corrupt morals or incite to crime"

Prior procedural posture

Burstyn appealed the decision to NY courts, arguing

  • Violation of 1st, 14th (free speech)
  • Violation of 1st, 14th (separation of church, state)
  • "Sacrilegious" is vague
  • Appellate Division rejected all, upheld the Regents

Burstyn appealed to NY Court of Appeals

  • 2 judges dissented but
  • Appelated Division order was affirmed

Burstyn appeal is now taken up by the US courts

Issue to be decided

  • Here we consider only the contention that the NY statue is uncontitutional abridgement of free speech, press

Law that applies

  • Previous holding in Mutual Film Corp v. Industrial Comm'n (Ohio) is no longer adhered to
    • In which the Court deemed motion pictures to be a "business pure and simple like other spectacles"

Court's holding

  • Note: they do not decide about state censorship in other cases, only the present case and use of "sacrilegious"

Legal view of motion pictures

  • "Cannot be doubted", motion pictures are a significant medium for communicating ideas
    • "Not lessened" by their role in entertainment nor business

Problem of prior restraint

  • "Previous restraint is a form of infringement upon freedom of expression to be especially condemned"
    • Only a "narrow exception" is possible

Dissent/joining opinion

Reed, concurring

  • This decision does not foreclose that a state may establish a system

Frankfurter (Jackson joins) concurring; Burton, concurring and joining this opinion

  • The film critic at the Vatican gave it a lukewarm review and wrote,
"We continue to believe in Rossellini's art and we look forward to his next achievement"
  • The Church could have had the movie censored by the Italian gov't - but it did not
  • In the US, few problems until Cardinal Spellman objected
  • Many Christians, Catholic and Protestant opposed his critique

Challenges to judication

  • "The Constitution, we cannot recall to often, is an organism, not merely a literary composition"

= "Sacrilege"

  • The NY Court did not provide a stable definition of "sacrilegious" (Aquinas perchance?)
    • Instead they acted as though its meaning is self-evident
Retrieved from "http://www.kevindriscoll.org/wiki/BURSTYN_v._WILSON,_343_U.S._495,_1952"
Personal tools