Joseph Burstyn v. Wilson

Citation72 S.Ct. 777,343 U.S. 495,96 L.Ed. 1098
Decision Date26 May 1952
Docket NumberNo. 522,522
PartiesJOSEPH BURSTYN, Inc. v. WILSON et al
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Mr. Ephraim S. London, Clendon H. Lee, Milton H. Spiero, and Leonard P. Simpson, New York City, for appellant.

Mr. Charles A. Brind, Jr., Wendell P. Brown, Albany, N.J., for appellees.

Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue here is the constitutionality, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, of a New York statute which permits the banning of motion picture films on the ground that they are 'sacrilegious.' That statute makes it unlawful 'to exhibit, or to sell, lease or lend for exhibition at any place of amusement for pay or in connection with any business in the state of New York, any motion picture film or reel (with specified exceptions not relevant here), unless there is at the time in full force and effect a valid license or permit therefor of the education department * * *.'1 The statute further provides:

'The director of the (motion picture) division (of the education department) or, when authorized by the regents, the officers of a local office or bureau shall cause to be promptly examined every motion picture film submitted to them as herein required, and unless such film or a part thereof is obscene, indecent, immoral, inhuman, sacrilegious, or is of such a character that its exhibition would tend to corrupt morals or incite to crime, shall issue a license therefor. If such director or, when so authorized, such officer shall not license any film submitted, he shall furnish to the applicant therefor a written report of the reasons for his refusal and a description of each rejected part of a film not rejected in toto.'2

Appellant is a corporation engaged in the business of distributing motion pictures. It owns the exclusive rights to distribute throughout the United States a film produced in Italy entitled 'The Miracle.' On November 30, 1950, after having examined the picture, the motion picture division of the New York education depart- ment, acting under the statute quoted above, issued to appellant a license authorizing exhibition of 'The Miracle,' with English subtitles, as one part of a trilogy called 'Ways of Love.'3 Thereafter, for a period of approximately eight weeks, 'Ways of Love' was exhibited publicly in a motion picture theater in New York City under an agreement between appellant and the owner of the theater whereby appellant received a stated percentage of the admission price.

During this period, the New York State Board of Regents, which by statute is made the head of the education department,4 received 'hundreds of letters, telegrams, post cards, affidavits and other communications' both protesting against and defending the public exhibition of 'The Miracle.'5 The Chancellor of the Board or Regents requested three members of the Board to view the picture and to make a report to the entire Board. After viewing the film, this committee reported to the Board that in its opinion there was basis for the claim that the picture was 'sacrilegious.' Thereafter, on January 19, 1951, the Regents directed appellant to show cause, at a hearing to be held on January 30, why its license to show 'The Miracle' should not be rescinded on that ground. Appellant appeared at this hearing, which was conducted by the same three-member committee of the Regents which had previously viewed the picture, and challenged the jurisdiction of the committee and of the Regents to proceed with the case. With the consent of the committee, various interested persons and organizations submitted to it briefs and exhibits bearing upon the merits of the picture and upon the constitutional and statutory questions involved. On February 16, 1951, the Regents, after viewing 'The Miracle,' determined that it was 'sacrilegious' and for that reason ordered the Commissioner of Education to rescind appellant's license to exhibit the picture. The Commissioner did so.

Appellant brought the present action in the New York courts to review the determination of the Regents.6 Among the claims advanced by appellant were (1) that the statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment as a prior restraint upon freedom of speech and of the press; (2) that it is invalid under the same Amendment as a violation of the guaranty of separate church and state and as a prohibition of the free exercise of religion; and, (3) that the term 'sacrilegious' is so vague and indefinite as to offend due process. The Appellate Division rejected all of appellant's contentions and upheld the Regents' determination. 278 App.Div. 253, 104 N.Y.S.2d 740. On appeal the New York Court of Appeals, two judges dissenting, affirmed the order of the Appellate Division. 303 N.Y. 242, 101 N.E.2d 665. The case is here on appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1257(2).

As we view the case, we need consider only appellant's contention that the New York statute is an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech and a free press. In Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Comm. of Ohio, 1915, 236 U.S. 230, 35 S.Ct. 387, 59 L.Ed. 552, a distributor of motion pictures sought to enjoin the enforcement of an Ohio statute which required the prior approval of a board of censors before any motion picture could be publicly exhibited in the state, and which directed the board to approve only such films as it adjudged to be 'of a moral, educational, or amusing and harmless character.' The statute was assailed in part as an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court rejected this contention, stating that the first eight Amendments were not a restriction on state action. D.C.N.D.Ohio 1914, 215 F. 138, 141. On appeal to this Court, plaintiff in its brief abandoned this claim and contended merely that the statute in question violated the freedom of speech and publication guaranteed by the Constitution of Ohio. In affirming the decree of the District Court denying injunctive relief, this Court stated:

'It cannot be put out of view that the exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit, like other spectacles, not to be regarded, nor intended to be regarded by the Ohio Constitution, we think, as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public opinion.'7

In a series of decisions beginning with Gitlow v. People of State of New York, 1925, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S.Ct. 625, 69 L.Ed. 1138, this Court held that the liberty of speech and of the press which the First Amendment guarantees against abridgment by the federal government is within the liberty safeguarded by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. 8 That principle has been followed and reaffirmed to the present day. Since this series of decisions came after the Mutual decision, the present case is the first to present squarely to us the question whether motion pictures are within the ambit of protection which the First Amendment, through the Fourteenth, secures to any form of 'speech' or 'the press.'9

It cannot be doubted that motion pictures are a significant medium for the communication of ideas. They may affect public attitudes and behavior in a variety of ways, ranging from direct espousal of a political or social doctrine to the subtle shaping of thought which characterizes all artistic expression. 10 The importance of motion pictures as an organ of public opinion is not lessened by the fact that they are designed to entertain as well as to inform. As was said in Winters v. People of State of New York, 1948, 333 U.S. 507, 510, 68 S.Ct. 665, 667, 92 L.Ed. 840:

'The line between the informing and the entertaining is too elusive for the protection of that basic right (a free press). Everyone is familiar with instances of propaganda through fiction. What is one man's amusement, teaches another's doctrine.'

It is urged that motion pictures do not fall within the First Amendment's aegis because their production, distribution, and exhibition is a large-scale business conducted for private profit. We cannot agree. That 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 Amend- ment.11 We fail to see why operation for profit should have any different effect in the case of motion pictures.

It is further urged that motion pictures possess a greater capacity for evil, particularly among the youth of a community, than other modes of expression. Even if one were to accept this hypothesis, it does not follow that motion pictures should be disqualified from First Amendment protection. 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.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that expression by means of motion pictures is included within the free speech and free press guaranty of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. To the extent that language in the opinion in Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Comm., supra, is out of harmony with the views here set forth, we no longer adhere to it.12

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.13 Nor does it follow that motion pictures are necessarily subject to the precise rules governing any other particular method of expression. Each method tends to present its own peculiar problems. But the basic principles of freedom of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
641 cases
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 21 d2 Janeiro d2 1958
    ......295, from which may be inferred a position contrary to the Davis and Baskin cases. Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 59 S.Ct. 872, 83 L.Ed. 1281, is the third case upon which the majority bases its ...State of Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 66 S.Ct. 1029, 90 L.Ed. 1295 and Burstyn, Inc., v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 72 S.Ct. 777, 96 L.Ed. 1098, in each of which the Court upheld the ......
  • Whitney v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 1 d5 Junho d5 1962
    ...... In Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) 343 U.S. 495, 72 S.Ct. 777, 96 L.Ed. 1098, the court . Page 554 . was ......
  • Crownover v. Musick
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 1 d2 Maio d2 1973
    ...... That protection dates from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Joseph Burstyn v. Wilson (1952) 343 U.S. 495, 72 S.Ct. 777, 96 L.Ed. 1098, which struck down a New York ......
  • Citizens for Parental Rights v. San Mateo County Bd. of Education
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 28 d4 Agosto d4 1975
    ......229, 83 S.Ct. 680, 9 L.Ed.2d 697; Kingsley Pictures Corp. L.Ed.2d 1512; Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 72 S.Ct. 777, 96 L.Ed. 1098). . 19 The best brief ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Bordering On Reality: Can A Work Of Fiction Give Rise To A Misappropriation Claim?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 13 d5 Julho d5 2001
    ...Inc., now know as Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, Inc., before the California Supreme Court. 8. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 501, 502 (1952). See also People v. Freeman, 46 Cal. 3d 419, 425, 250 Cal. Rptr. 598 (1988), cert. denied 489 U.S. 1017 (1989) ("[r]egardle......
  • Mofo New York Tax Insights - Winter 2012
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 18 d3 Janeiro d3 2012
    ...e.g., Simon & Schuster v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105, 115 (1991). 33 Joseph Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 502 34 Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991). 35 Id. at 192. 36 Id. at 193. 37 National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998)......
27 books & journal articles
  • The First Amendment and the Right(s) of Publicity.
    • United States
    • 1 d4 Outubro d4 2020
    ...Recuperating First Amendment Doctrine, 47 STAN. L. REV. 1249, 1276 (1995); see id. at 1253-55. (213.) See Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 501 (1952) (granting First Amendment protection to motion pictures because they "ate a significant medium for the communication of ideas");......
    • United States
    • South Dakota Law Review Vol. 66 No. 3, March 2021
    • 22 d1 Março d1 2021
    ...Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530, 546, n.5 (1980) (Stephens, J., concurring); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 501 n.8 (1952); Grosjean v. Am. Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936); Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concur......
  • Censorship by proxy: the First Amendment, Internet intermediaries, and the problem of the weakest link.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 155 No. 1, November 2006
    • 1 d3 Novembro d3 2006
    ...Miami branch of the NAACP). (166) The Supreme Court account of self-censorship as a phenomenon begins with Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 531 n.56 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (noting how self-censorship distorted studio-era Hollywood's depiction of historical figures......
  • Freedom of speech and information privacy: the troubling implications of a right to stop people from speaking about you.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 52 No. 5, May 2000
    • 1 d1 Maio d1 2000 matter that the dissemination [of speech by the claimant] takes place under commercial auspices"); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 501 (1952) ("It is urged that motion pictures do not fall within the First Amendment's aegis because their production, distribution, and exhibi......
  • 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