Freedman v. State, No. 144

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
Writing for the CourtSYBERT
Citation233 Md. 498,197 A.2d 232
Docket NumberNo. 144
Decision Date10 February 1964
PartiesRonald L. FREEDMAN v. STATE of Maryland.

Page 498

233 Md. 498
197 A.2d 232
Ronald L. FREEDMAN
v.
STATE of Maryland.
No. 144.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Feb. 10, 1964.

Page 500

Felix Bilgrey, New York City, and Richard C. Whiteford, Baltimore (Due, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

J. Cookman Boyd, Jr., Baltimore (Sidney A. Schreiber and Barbara A. Scott, New York City, on the brief), for Motion Picture Ass'n of America, Inc., amicus curiae.

Robert F. Sweeney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., William J. O'Donnell and Robert F. Freeze, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., respectively, [197 A.2d 233] for Baltimore City, on the brief), for appellee.

Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.

SYBERT, Judge.

In order to test the constitutionality of the Maryland motion picture censorship statute, the appellant invited arrest by exhibiting the motion picture film 'Revenge at Daybreak' at a theatre in Baltimore City without first having submitted the film to the Maryland State Board of Motion Picture Censors for approval and licensing, as required by Code (1957), Art. 66A, Sec. 2 1. He was indicted and tried in the Criminal Court of Baltimore for violation of Sec. 2, and convicted after his timely motions for judgment of acquittal were denied. He now appeals.

The appellant has attempted, both in the court below and on this appeal, to attack the constitutionality of Art. 66A in its entirety, even though he was tried and convicted only for violation

Page 501

of Sec. 2. The principal contention is that the statute is void on its face as an unconstitutional infringement upon free speech and press violative of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (made applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment) and of Art. 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The appellant then argues that in the defense of a criminal prosecution under Sec. 2 of Art. 66A he is entitled to challenge the constitutionality of the entire statute 'since he is charged with a violation under the Act.' Acting upon that premise, he proceeds to attack separately what he asserts are constitutional infirmities of certain features of the Act. His claims are that the Act fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards (although he noted that Sec. 19 of Art. 66A affords an appeal to the Baltimore City Court and thence to this Court); that the standards established by Sec. 6 2 of the

Page 502

Act are vague and hence invalid as construed and applied; that the statute deprives him of equal protection of the law in that newsreels and noncommercial exhibitors such as educational, charitable, fraternal and religious organizations are excluded from the operation [197 A.2d 234] of the Act; and that the fee charged for the inspection and licensing of a film constitutes an invalid tax upon the exercise of freedom of speech.

The State maintained below and here that the statute is not void on its face, and that since the appellant did not submit his film to the Board for approval and licensing he lacks standing to challenge any provision or requirement of Art. 66A, except the provisions of Sec. 2, for violation of which he was convicted. The trial court agreed with the position of the State. Parenthetically, it is noted that neither the appellant nor the State even suggests that the film 'Revenge at Daybreak' would violate any of the standards set out in the statute, and the State conceded that it would have been approved had it been submitted for licensing.

We shall first consider the appellant's main attack--that the Maryland statute is void on its face as an unconstitutional prior restraint imposed upon the freedoms of speech and press protected against State action by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and by Art. 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 72 S.Ct. 777, 96 L.Ed. 1098 (1952), held that motion pictures are within the ambit of protection which the First Amendment, through the Fourteenth, affords to speech and the press, and struck down the use of 'sacrilegious' as a permissible censorship standard. However, the Court intimated that some form of censorship might be permissible when it said (at p. 502 of 343 U.S., at p. 781 of 72 S.Ct., 96 L.Ed. 1098): 'To hold that liberty of expression by means of motion pictures is guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, however, is not the end of our problem. It does not follow that the Constitution requires absolute freedom to exhibit every motion picture of every kind at all times and all places. That much is evident from the series of decisions of this Court with respect to other media of communication of ideas.' The Court further stated (ibid.) in considering the argument that motion pictures possess a greater capacity

Page 503

for evil, particularly among the youth of a community, than other modes of expression: 'If there be capacity for evil it may be relevant in determining the permissible scope of community control, but it does not authorize substantially unbridled censorship such as we have here.' Subsequent to Burstyn, a number of film censorship cases reached the Supreme Court which involved questions of standards. The films in those cases had all been submitted to the appropriate authorities and permits for their exhibition were refused because of their content. Thus those cases are not apposite here and will not be reviewed.

In 1961, in Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, 365 U.S. 43, 81 S.Ct. 391, 5 L.Ed.2d 403, the question whether or not the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech and of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • State Of Md. v. Holton, No. 861
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 1, 2010
    ...the federal Constitution, subject to any limitation imposed by other provisions of the Maryland Constitution. Compare Freedman v. State, 233 Md. 498 [197 A.2d 232 (1964) ], reversed on other grounds, 380 U.S. 51 [85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965) ]; Brown v. State, 233 Md. 288 [196 A.2d 6......
  • Bosse v. Baltimore County, Case No. PWG-09-050.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • March 10, 2010
    ...the First Amendment." Jakanna Woodworks, Inc. v. Montgomery County, 344 Md. 584, 689 A.2d 65, 70 (1997); see Freedman v. State, 233 Md. 498, 197 A.2d 232, 235-36 (1964) ("The guaranty of freedom of speech and press ordained in Art. 40 would appear to be, in legal effect, substantially simil......
  • Newell v. Runnels, No. 48, September Term, 2008.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • March 13, 2009
    ...the First Amendment. Jakanna Woodworks, Inc. v. Montgomery County, 344 Md. 584, 595, 689 A.2d 65, 70 (1997); see also Freedman v. State, 233 Md. 498, 505, 197 A.2d 232, 235 (1964) (noting that "Art[icle] 40 has been treated by this Court as in pari materia with the First Amendment"), rev'd ......
  • State v. Onorato, No. CR
    • United States
    • Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
    • December 23, 1965
    ...avoids constitutional infirmity only if statutory scheme provides adequate statutory provision for judicial participation, reversing 233 Md. 498, 197 A.2d 232); Trans-Lux Distributing Corporation v. Regents of University, 380 U.S. 259, 85 S.Ct. 952, 13 L.Ed.2d 959 (Board of Regents of New Y......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • State Of Md. v. Holton, No. 861
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 1, 2010
    ...the federal Constitution, subject to any limitation imposed by other provisions of the Maryland Constitution. Compare Freedman v. State, 233 Md. 498 [197 A.2d 232 (1964) ], reversed on other grounds, 380 U.S. 51 [85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965) ]; Brown v. State, 233 Md. 288 [196 A.2d 6......
  • Bosse v. Baltimore County, Case No. PWG-09-050.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • March 10, 2010
    ...the First Amendment." Jakanna Woodworks, Inc. v. Montgomery County, 344 Md. 584, 689 A.2d 65, 70 (1997); see Freedman v. State, 233 Md. 498, 197 A.2d 232, 235-36 (1964) ("The guaranty of freedom of speech and press ordained in Art. 40 would appear to be, in legal effect, substantially simil......
  • Newell v. Runnels, No. 48, September Term, 2008.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • March 13, 2009
    ...the First Amendment. Jakanna Woodworks, Inc. v. Montgomery County, 344 Md. 584, 595, 689 A.2d 65, 70 (1997); see also Freedman v. State, 233 Md. 498, 505, 197 A.2d 232, 235 (1964) (noting that "Art[icle] 40 has been treated by this Court as in pari materia with the First Amendment"), rev'd ......
  • State v. Onorato, No. CR
    • United States
    • Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
    • December 23, 1965
    ...avoids constitutional infirmity only if statutory scheme provides adequate statutory provision for judicial participation, reversing 233 Md. 498, 197 A.2d 232); Trans-Lux Distributing Corporation v. Regents of University, 380 U.S. 259, 85 S.Ct. 952, 13 L.Ed.2d 959 (Board of Regents of New Y......
  • 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