Superior Films v. Department of Education of State of Ohio, Division of Film Censorship Commercial Pictures Corporation v. Regents of University of State of New York

Citation74 S.Ct. 286,98 L.Ed. 329,346 U.S. 587
Decision Date18 January 1954
Docket Number274,Nos. 217,s. 217
PartiesSUPERIOR FILMS, Inc., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF STATE OF OHIO, DIVISION OF FILM CENSORSHIP, Clyde Hissong, Supt. COMMERCIAL PICTURES CORPORATION, Appellant, v. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF STATE OF NEW YORK
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

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'.1 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. State of Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625, 626, 75 L.Ed. 1357. The 'chief purpose' of the constitutional guaranty of liberty of the press, said the Court, was 'to prevent previous restraints upon publication.' 283 US. at page 713, 51 S.Ct. at page 630.

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 irreconciable 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 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, 65 S.Ct. 315, 327, 89 L.Ed. 430. 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, 72 S.Ct. 777, 780, 781, 96 L.Ed. 1098, that motion pictures are 'within the free speech and free press guaranty of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
75 cases
  • Furr v. Town of Swansea
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 12 Octubre 1984
    ...777, 96 L.Ed. 1098 (1952); Gelling v. Texas, 343 U.S. 960, 72 S.Ct. 1002, 96 L.Ed. 1359 (1952); Superior Films, Inc. v. Department of Education, 346 U.S. 587, 74 S.Ct. 286, 98 L.Ed. 329 (1954); Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 78 S.Ct. 277, 2 L.Ed.2d 302 (1958); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536......
  • Scull v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 10 Abril 1984
    ...S.Ct. 285, 78 L.Ed.2d 262 (1983); United States v. Pilcher, 672 F.2d 875, 877 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 973, 103 S.Ct. 306, 74 S.Ct. 286 (1982); United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925, 100 S.Ct. 3018, 65 L.Ed.2d 1117 (1980). A taxpayer, h......
  • Interstate Circuit, Inc v. City of Dallas United Artists Corporation v. City of Dallas, s. 56
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 22 Abril 1968
    ...343 U.S. 960, 72 S.Ct. 1002, 96 L.Ed. 1359 (1952); 'moral, educational or amusing and harmless,' Superior Films, Inc. v. Department of Education, 346 U.S. 587, 74 S.Ct. 286, 98 L.Ed. 329 (1954); 'immoral,' and 'tend to corrupt morals,' Commercial Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 346 U.S. 587, 74 ......
  • Jacobellis v. State of Ohio
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 22 Junio 1964
    ...States, 354 U.S. 476, 508, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1321, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498, and his concurring opinion in Superior Films, Inc. v. Department of Education, 346 U.S. 587, 588, 74 S.Ct. 286, 98 L.Ed. 329, in both of which I Mr. Justice STEWART, concurring. It is possible to read the Court's opinion in Rot......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Deportation for a Sin: Why Moral Turpitude Is Void for Vagueness
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 90, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...at 504-05. 296. Superior Films, Inc. v. Dep't of Educ., 112 N.E.2d 311 (Ohio 1954), rev'dper curiam, Commercial Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 346 U.S. 587 (1954). In a companion case, Superior Films, Inc. v. Department of Education, 346 U.S. 587 (1954), the Court also struck down as void an or......
  • The South Counterattacks: the Anti-Naacp Laws
    • United States
    • Sage Political Research Quarterly No. 12-2, June 1959
    • 1 Junio 1959
    ...v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952); Gelling v. Texas, 343 U.S. 960 (1952); SuperiorFilms Inc. v. Department of Education of Ohio, 346 U.S. 587 Prior restraint has been permitted by the Court under certain circumstances, but of the cases presently to be noted, the first two involved commercial e......
  • First Amendment Follies: Forbidden Films and the Kansas State Board of Review
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 88-10, December 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...Censorship, 112 N.E.2d 311, 313 (1953), rev’d sub nom. Superior Films, Inc. v. Dep’t of Educ. of State of Ohio, Div. of Film Censorship, 346 U.S. 587, 74 S.Ct. 286, 98 L.Ed. 329 (1954). The Kansas State Board of Review also banned the film because it “[tended] to degrade both colored and Wh......
  • The First Amendment Follies: Forbidden Films and the Kansas State Board of Review
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 88-10, December 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...Censorship, 112 N.E.2d 311, 313 (1953), revd sub nom. Superior Films, Inc. v. Dep't of Educ. of State of Ohio, Div. of Film Censorship, 346 U.S. 587, 74 S. Ct. 286, 98 L. Ed. 329 (1954). The Kansas State Board of Review also banned the film because it "[tended] to degrade both colored and W......

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