SUPERIOR FILMS, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF OHIO, DIVISION OF FILM CENSORSHIP, HISSONG, SUPERINTENDENT, 346 U.S. 587 (1954)
- Argued:
- January 06, 1954
- Decided:
- January 18, 1954
- Decided by:
- Warren Court, 1953
- Legal Principle at Issue:
- Whether an Ohio statute forbidding the commercial showing of any motion picture film without a license constitutes a prior restraint and is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
- Action:
- Reversed. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.
Majority Opinion
Earl Warren Tom Clark Felix Frankfurter Harold Burton Stanley Reed Sherman Minton Robert Jackson
Concurring Opinion
Dissenting Opinion
No opinions found
SUPERIOR FILMS, INC.
v.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF OHIO, DIVISION OF FILM CENSORSHIP, HISSONG, SUPERINTENDENT.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.[*]John C. Harlor argued the cause for appellant in No. 217. With him on the brief were F. J. Wright and Michael Gesas. Earl F. Morris was also of counsel.Florence Perlow Shientag argued the cause for appellant in No. 274. With her on the brief was Philip J. O’Brien, Jr.
C. William O’Neill, Attorney General of Ohio, argued the cause for appellee in No. 217. With him on the brief were Robert E. Leach, Chief Counsel, and Gwynne B. Myers, Assistant Attorney General.
Charles A. Brind, Jr. argued the cause for appellees in No. 274. With him on the brief were Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney General of New York, Wendell P. Brown, Solicitor General, and Ruth Kessler Toch, Assistant Attorney General.
Briefs of amici curiae supporting appellant in No. 217 were filed by Sidney A. Schreiber and Philip J. O’Brien, Jr. for the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. *588 et al.; and by Morris L. Ernst for the National Council on Freedom from Censorship, a Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union.
PER CURIAM.
The judgments are reversed. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK agrees, concurring.
The argument of Ohio and New York that the government may establish censorship over moving pictures is one I cannot accept. In 1925 Minnesota passed a law aimed at suppressing before publication any “malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper.” The Court, speaking through Chief Justice Hughes, struck down that law as violating the Fourteenth Amendment, which has made the First Amendment applicable to the States. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697. The “chief purpose” of the constitutional guaranty of liberty of the press, said the Court, was “to prevent previous restraints upon publication.” Id., p. 713.
The history of censorship is so well known it need not be summarized here. Certainly a system, still in force in some nations, which required a newspaper to submit to a board its news items, editorials, and cartoons before it published them could not be sustained. Nor could book publishers be required to submit their novels, poems, and tracts to censors for clearance before publication. Any such scheme of censorship would be in irreconcilable conflict with the language and purpose of the First Amendment.
Nor is it conceivable to me that producers of plays for the legitimate theatre or for television could be required to submit their manuscripts to censors on pain of penalty for producing them without approval. Certainly the *589 spoken word is as freely protected against prior restraints as that which is written. Such indeed is the force of our decision in Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 540. The freedom of the platform which it espouses carries with it freedom of the stage.
The same result in the case of motion pictures necessarily follows as a consequence of our holding in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495, 502, that motion pictures are “within the free speech and free press guaranty of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”
Motion pictures are of course a different medium of expression than the public speech, the radio, the stage, the novel, or the magazine. But the First Amendment draws no distinction between the various methods of communicating ideas. On occasion one may be more powerful or effective than another. The movie, like the public speech, radio, or television, is transitory—here now and gone in an instant. The novel, the short story, the poem in printed form are permanently at hand to reenact the drama or to retell the story over and again. Which medium will give the most excitement and have the most enduring effect will vary with the theme and the actors. It is not for the censor to determine in any case. The First and the Fourteenth Amendments say that Congress and the States shall make “no law” which abridges freedom of speech or of the press. In order to sanction a system of censorship I would have to say that “no law” does not mean what it says, that “no law” is qualified to mean “some” laws. I cannot take that step.
In this Nation every writer, actor, or producer, no matter what medium of expression he may use, should be freed from the censor.
NOTES
[*] Together with No. 274, Commercial Pictures Corp. v. Regents of the University of the State of New York, on appeal from the Court of Appeals of New York, argued January 7, 1954.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, et al., PETITIONERS v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, et al., 564 U.S. 786 (2011)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
UNITED STATES v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS, 553 U.S. 285 (2008)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al., 542 U.S. 656 (2004)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CITY OF LITTLETON, COLORADO v. Z. J. GIFTS D-4, L. L. C., A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DBA CHRISTAL’S, 541 U.S. 774 (2004)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., 539 U.S. 194 (2003)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC., et al., 535 U.S. 425 (2002)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al., 535 U.S. 564 (2002)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. THE FREE SPEECH COALITION et al., 535 U.S. 234 (2002)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
UNITED STATES, et al. v. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., 529 U.S. 803 (2000)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CITY OF ERIE, et al. v. PAP’S A. M., TDBA ‘KANDYLAND’, 529 U.S. 277 (2000)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al., 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
UNITED STATES v. X-CITEMENT VIDEO, INC., et al., 513 U.S. 64 (1994)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
FERRIS J. ALEXANDER, SR. v. UNITED STATES, 509 U.S. 544 (1993)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
MICHAEL BARNES, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA, et al. v. GLEN THEATRE, INC., et al., 501 U.S. 560 (1991)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
FW/PBS, INC., DBA PARIS ADULT BOOKSTORE II, et al. v. CITY OF DALLAS et al., 493 U.S. 215 (1990)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
SABLE COMMUNICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al., 492 U.S. 115 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
MASSACHUSETTS v. OAKES, 491 U.S. 576 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
FORT WAYNE BOOKS, INC. v. INDIANA et al., 489 U.S. 46 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
POPE et al. v. ILLINOIS, 481 U.S. 497 (1987)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CITY OF NEWPORT, KENTUCKY, et al. v. IACOBUCCI, DBA TALK OF THE TOWN, et al., 479 U.S. 92 (1986)
- Lower Court Ruling:
- Overruled (in part)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
ARCARA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ERIE COUNTY v. CLOUD BOOKS, INC., DBA VILLAGE BOOK & NEWS STORE, et al., 478 U.S. 697 (1986)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 403 et al. v. FRASER, A MINOR, et al., 478 U.S. 675 (1986)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
NEW YORK v. P.J. VIDEO, INC., DBA NETWORK VIDEO, et al., 475 U.S. 868 (1986)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CITY OF RENTON et al. v. PLAYTIME THEATRES, INC., et al., 475 U.S. 41 (1986)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
BROCKETT v. SPOKANE ARCADES, INC., et al., 472 U.S. 491 (1985)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CALIFORNIA ex rel. COOPER, CITY ATTORNEY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA v. MITCHELL BROTHERS’ SANTA ANA THEATER et al., 454 U.S. 90 (1981)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY v. BELLANCA, DBA THE MAIN EVENT, et al., 452 U.S. 714 (1981)
- Lower Court Ruling:
- Overruled (in part)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
SCHAD et al. v. BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM, 452 U.S. 61 (1981)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
FLYNT et al. v. OHIO, 451 U.S. 619 (1981)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
VANCE et al. v. UNIVERSAL AMUSEMENT CO., INC., et al., 445 U.S. 308 (1980)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION et al., 438 U.S. 726 (1978)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
PINKUS, DBA ROSSLYN NEWS CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES, 436 U.S. 293 (1978)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
SPLAWN v. CALIFORNIA, 431 U.S. 595 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
SMITH v. UNITED STATES, 431 U.S. 291 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
MARKS et al. v. UNITED STATES, 430 U.S. 188 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
YOUNG, MAYOR OF DETROIT, et al. v. AMERICAN MINI THEATRES, INC., et al., 427 U.S. 50 (1976)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
MCKINNEY v. ALABAMA, 424 U.S. 669 (1976)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
ERZNOZNIK v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, 422 U.S. 205 (1975)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
SOUTHEASTERN PROMOTIONS, LTD. v. CONRAD et al., 420 U.S. 546 (1975)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
HAMLING et al. v. UNITED STATES, 418 U.S. 87 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
ALEXANDER et al. v. VIRGINIA, 413 U.S. 836 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
MILLER v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
PARIS ADULT THEATRE I et al. v. SLATON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, et al., 413 U.S. 49 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Movie Censorship, Obscenity
KAPLAN v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 115 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
UNITED STATES v. 12 200-FT. REELS OF SUPER 8MM. FILM et al. (PALADINI, CLAIMANT), 413 U.S. 123 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
UNITED STATES v. ORITO, 413 U.S. 139 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
PAPISH v. BOARD OF CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI et al., 410 U.S. 667 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CALIFORNIA et al. v. LARUE et al., 409 U.S. 109 (1972)
- Lower Court Ruling:
- Overruled (in part)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
UNITED STATES v. THIRTY-SEVEN (37) PHOTOGRAPHS (LUROS, CLAIMANT), 402 U.S. 363 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
UNITED STATES v. REIDEL, 402 U.S. 351 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
GROVE PRESS, INC., et al. v. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF CENSORS, 401 U.S. 480 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
BLOUNT, POSTMASTER GENERAL, et al. v. RIZZI, DBA THE MAIL BOX, 400 U.S. 410 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
HOYT et al. v. MINNESOTA, 399 U.S. 524 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
BLOSS et al. v. DYKEMA, 398 U.S. 278 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
ROWAN, DBA AMERICAN BOOK SERVICE, et al. v. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT et al., 397 U.S. 728 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CAIN et al. v. KENTUCKY, 397 U.S. 319 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
LEE ART THEATRE, INC. v. VIRGINIA, 392 U.S. 636 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC., et al. v. CITY OF DALLAS, 391 U.S. 53 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
GINSBERG v. NEW YORK, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC. v. CITY OF DALLAS, 390 U.S. 676 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Movie Censorship, Obscenity
FELTON et al. v. CITY OF PENSACOLA, 390 U.S. 340 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
I.M. AMUSEMENT CORP. v. OHIO., 389 U.S. 573 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
ROBERT-ARTHUR MANAGEMENT CORP. v. TENNESSEE ex rel. CANALE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY GENERAL, 389 U.S. 578 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CHANCE v. CALIFORNIA, 389 U.S. 89 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CENTRAL MAGAZINE SALES, LTD. v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 50 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
POTOMAC NEWS CO. v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 47 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CONNER v. CITY OF HAMMOND, 389 U.S. 48 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
ADAY et al. v. UNITED STATES, 388 U.S. 447 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
BOOKS, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 388 U.S. 449 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
FRIEDMAN v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 441 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
RATNER et al. v. CALIFORNIA, 388 U.S. 442 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
SHEPERD et al. v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 444 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
AVANSINO et al. v. NEW YORK, 388 U.S. 446 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
CORINTH PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. WESBERRY et al., 388 U.S. 448 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
ROSENBLOOM v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 450 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
A QUANTITY OF COPIES OF BOOKS et al. v. KANSAS, 388 U.S. 452 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
SCHACKMAN et al. v. CALIFORNIA, 388 U.S. 454 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
REDMOND et ux. v. UNITED STATES, 384 U.S. 264 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
A BOOK NAMED ‘JOHN CLELAND’S MEMOIRS OF A WOMAN OF PLEASURE’ et al. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)
- Lower Court Ruling:
- Overruled
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
MISHKIN v. NEW YORK, 383 U.S. 502 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
GINZBURG et al. v. UNITED STATES, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
FREEDMAN v. MARYLAND, 380 U.S. 51 (1965)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Movie Censorship
JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Movie Censorship, Obscenity
GROVE PRESS, INC., v. GERSTEIN, STATE ATTORNEY, et al., 378 U.S. 577 (1964)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
TRALINS v. GERSTEIN, STATE ATTORNEY, 378 U.S. 576 (1964)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
BANTAM BOOKS, INC., et al. v. SULLIVAN et al., 372 U.S. 58 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
MANUAL ENTERPRISES, INC., et al. v. DAY, POSTMASTER GENERAL, 370 U.S. 478 (1962)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
TIMES FILM CORP. v. CITY OF CHICAGO et al., 365 U.S. 43 (1961)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Movie Censorship
SMITH v. CALIFORNIA, 361 U.S. 147 (1959)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
KINGSLEY INTERNATIONAL PICTURES CORP. v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 360 U.S. 684 (1959)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Movie Censorship, Obscenity
KINGSLEY BOOKS, INC., et al. v. BROWN, CORPORATION COUNSEL, 354 U.S. 436 (1957)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
ROTH v. UNITED STATES, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. v. WILSON, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION OF NEW YORK, et al., 343 U.S. 495 (1952)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Movie Censorship
UNITED STATES v. ALPERS, 338 U.S. 680 (1950)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
WINTERS v. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507 (1948)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
MUTUAL FILM CORPORATIONN v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, 236 U.S. 230 (1915)
- Lower Court Ruling:
- Overruled
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Movie Censorship, Obscenity
FOX v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, 236 U.S. 273 (1915)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Obscenity
External Resources:
- John R. Vile, “Superior Films v. Department of Education (1954),” First Amendment Encyclopedia.
Topics: Freedom of Speech & Expression, Movie Censorship, Obscenity
Cite this page: APA Bluebook Chicago MLA
This library is a work in progress. See an error on this page? Let us know.
Follow FIRE