American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Chicago, 33043

Decision Date24 May 1954
Docket NumberNo. 33043,33043
Citation3 Ill.2d 334,121 N.E.2d 585
PartiesAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al. v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

John J. Mortimer, Corporation Counsel, Chicago (John C. Melaniphy, Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.

Sanford I. Wolff, Leon M. Despres, Richard Orlikoff, and Abner J. Mikva, Chicago (F. Raymond Marks, Jr., Alexander L. Polikoff, and Bernard Weisberg, Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.

SCHAEFER, Chief Justice.

Chapter 155 of the Municipal Code of the city of Chicago makes it unlawful to exhibit any motion picture or to distribute any motion picture to any exhibitor in the city without having first secured a permit from the commissioner of police. The commissioner is required to issue the permit, upon application and payment of the prescribed fee, unless he determines that the picture is 'immoral or obscene, or portrays depravity, criminality, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens of any race, color, creed, or religion and exposes them to contempt, derision, or obloquy, or tends to produce a breach of the peace or riots, or purports to represent any hanging, lynching, or burning of a human being,' in which case he is required to refuse a permit. The American Civil Liberties Union and Charles Liebman, assignees of the right to distribute and exhibit in Chicago a motion picture called 'The Miracle,' applied to the commissioner for a permit. The commissioner refused to issue it on the ground that the picture was 'immoral and obscene.' As provided by the ordinance, an appeal was taken to the mayor, who affirmed the commissioner's decision.

The distributors thereupon brought suit in the circuit court of Cook County against the city of Chicago, the mayor, and the commissioner of police. The complaint, to which a print of the film was attached as an exhibit, alleged that the ordinance deprived the plaintiffs of the right of free speech guaranteed by article II, section 4 of the Illinois constitution, S.H.A., and by the first and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution. In addition to a judgment declaring the ordinance unconstitutional, the plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from preventing the exhibition of the film. By their answer the defendants denied that the ordinance was invalid, and asserted that the picture was immoral and obscene. They also filed a demand for jury trial, and challenged the plaintiffs' right to a declaratory judgment on the ground that there was an adequate remedy at law by way of mandamus. No reply was filed by the plaintiffs. The film was viewed by the court over the defendants' objection, and a decree was entered enjoining the defendants from preventing the exhibition of the film. The court has certified that the validity of a municipal ordinance is involved and that the public interest requires a direct appeal to this court.

The most important issue which this case presents is whether the first and fourteenth amendments to the constitution of the United States, and article II, section 4, of the constitution of Illinois permit the censorship of motion pictures. The ordinance before us has twice been upheld by this court, and the defendants consider the question settled. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, take the position that those decisions are superseded by subsequent decisions of the United States Supreme Court which the plaintiffs regard as rendering unconstitutional, as a 'prior restraint' upon freedom of speech, all censorship of motion pictures. Disposition of the case thus requires a review both of our decisions and of those of the Supreme Court of the United States.

In Block v. City of Chicago, 239 Ill. 251, 87 N.E. 1011, 1013, decided in 1909, suit was brought to enjoin the city from interfering with the exhibition of two films entitled 'the 'James Boys" and 'Night Riders,' for which a permit had been denied. The ordinance was sustained against the objection that the terms 'obscene' and 'immoral' were so broad as to make the delegation of censorship power to the chief of police unconstitutional, and it was also held that no hearing need be allowed before refusing a permit. In 1930 the ordinance again came before the court in United Artists Corp. v. Thompson, 339 Ill. 595, 171 N.E. 742, a case arising out of the denial of a permit to exhibit a film called 'Alibi.' The court held invalid that part of the ordinance which provided for confiscation, without notice, of films put into distribution after the refusal of a permit, but summarily upheld the licensing provision, stating, 'The power of a city to provide for a board of censors and to require a permit before any moving picture can be exhibited in a municipality cannot be doubted.' 339 Ill. 595, 602, 171 N.E. 742, 745.

In each case the permit was denied on the ground of immorality, a term to which the court ascribed a broad meaning. In the Block case it was impliedly held that the portrayal of crimes was immoral, since this would 'necessarily' produce evil effects upon youthful spectators, and the court stressed the point that the typical audience included 'those classes whose age, education, and situation in life specially entitle them to protection against the evil influence of obscene and immoral representations.' 239 Ill. 251, 258, 265, 87 N.E. 1011, 1013. In the United Artists case the police censor board described the picture as portraying numerous crimes of violence and in particular as showing third degree and other brutal practices by the police, which would tend "to create contempt and hatred for the entire police force." 339 Ill. 595, 598, 171 N.E 742, 744. The court, repeating the remarks made in the Block case concerning the necessity of protecting the more susceptible members of the audience, agreed that the film, which it did not view, 'could not fail to have a tendency to cheapen the value of human life in the minds of youthful spectators,' and that 'its exhibition would have a tendency toward immorality and to cause an increasing disrespect for the law and its officers.' 339 Ill. 595, 602, 605, 171 N.E. 742, 746.

What is most significant about these cases in their present bearing is that neither of them considered or even referred to the constitutional issue of freedom of speech. When the Block case was decided in 1909, it had not yet been determined that the freedom of speech which is secured against Federal infringement by the first amendment to the constitution of the United States is also secured by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment against infringement by the States. See Joseph Burstyn, Inc., v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 499, 500, 72 S.Ct. 777, 96 L.Ed. 1098. And when the United Artists case was decided, motion pictures were not regarded as a form of communication within the protection of the first and fourteenth amendments. See Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Comm., 236 U.S. 230, 35 S.Ct. 387, 59 L.Ed. 552. Subsequent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, however, have extended that protection to motion pictures, and we therefore must re-examine the validity of the ordinance in their light.

In the first of these cases, Joseph Burstyn, Inc., v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 72 S.Ct. 777, 96 L.Ed. 1098, the Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Court of Appeals of New York which had sustained censorship of the same film which is before us now. We may say at once that we do not regard that decision as having completely immunized 'The Miracle' against censorship. The sole basis of censorship in that case was that the film was sacrilegious; power to censor upon any other basis was not considered by the Supreme Court. That court, while holding that expression of ideas through motion pictures was protected under the first and fourteenth amendments, observed that this protection did not imply 'absolute freedom to exhibit every motion picture of every kind at all times and all places', or that the rules governing motion pictures were necessarily the same as those applicable to other media of expression. 343 U.S. 495, 502, 503, 72 S.Ct. 777, 781. And the court expressly reserved decision on the question 'whether a state may censor motion pictures under a clearly drawn statute designed and applied to prevent the showing of obscene films.' 343 U.S. 495, 506-507, 72 S.Ct. 777, 782. Cf. Near v. State of Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S 697, 716, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-572, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031; Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 518, 68 S.Ct. 665, 92 L.Ed. 840.

The court did emphasize, however, that freedom of expression is the rule, and that particularly in the case of a 'prior restraint' a State has a heavy burden to justify an exception to that rule, 343 U.S. 495, 503, 504, 72 S.Ct. 777, 781, 782, a burden which the court held had not been sustained in the case before it. The term 'sacrilegious' had been construed by the New York Court of Appeals to include the act of treating any religion 'with contempt, mockery, scorn and ridicule', or any 'visual caricature of religious beliefs held sacred by one sect or another'. 303 N.Y. 242, 258 101 N.E.2d 665, 672. The Supreme Court observed that this statutory standard was so broad as to vest unlimited discretion in the censors, and 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.' 343 U.S. 495, 504, 505, 72 S.Ct. 777, 782.

Shortly after the Burstyn decision the court, in Gelling v. Texas, 343 U.S. 960, 72 S.Ct. 1002, 96 L.Ed. 1359, reversed without opinion a conviction for exhibiting a picture which had been denied a license under the terms of an ordinance permitting a license to be withheld if the censors should be of the opinion that the film was "prejudicial to the best...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • Roth v. United States Alberts v. State of California
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 24, 1957
    ... ... David von G. Albrecht, New York City, and O. John Rogge, Washington, D.C., for ... , and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are ... a broadened conception of these liberties as adequate to supply the public need for ... 3 Q.B. 360. 24 Some American courts adopted this standard 25 but later ... , affirmed, 2 Cir., 72 F.2d 705; American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Chicago, 3 Ill.2d 334, ... ...
  • Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago 19 20, 1960
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1961
    ... ... American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 245—246, 56 S.Ct. 444, 447, ... that the protection afforded First Amendment liberties from previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited. Near ... Court held that a state statute requiring a labor union organizer to obtain an organizer's card was incompatible ... 696 et seq.; Brief for American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae, pp. 14 15. Witchcraft, a ... ...
  • Zenith International Film Corp. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILL.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • April 11, 1960
    ... ... of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local 309 v. Hanke, 339 U.S. 470, 70 S.Ct. 773, 94 L.Ed ... If a board of censors can tell the American people what it is in their best interests to see or to read ... the ordinance is constitutional in light of American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Chicago, 3 Ill.2d 334, 121 ... ...
  • United States v. Roth
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • September 18, 1956
    ... ...          Philip Wittenberg, New York City (Wittenberg, Carrington & Farnsworth and Irving ... g., American Communications Ass'n, C.I.O. v. Douds, 339 U.S ... (such) a question can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is 237 F.2d 808 this then our ... the First Amendment, in (University of Chicago) Conference on the Arts, Publishing and the Law ... English restrictions on the enumerated liberties was still fresh, the First Amendment cannot ... Union v. City of Chicago, 3 Ill.2d 334, 121 N.E.2d 585, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT