Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson

Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 24, 1952 Decided May 26, 1952
Full case name	Joseph Burstyn, Incorporated v. Wilson, Commissioner of Education of New York, et al.
Citations	343 U.S. 495 (more) 72 S. Ct. 777; 96 L. Ed. 1098; 1952 U.S. LEXIS 2796; 1 Media L. Rep. 1357
Prior history	Appeal from the Court of Appeals of New York
Holding
The Court determined that certain provisions of the New York Education Law allowing a censor to forbid the commercial showing of any non-licensed motion picture film, or revoke or deny the license of a film deemed to be "sacrilegious," was a "restraint on freedom of speech" and thereby a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson Associate Justices Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton
Case opinions
Majority	Clark, joined by Vinson, Black, Douglas, Burton, Minton
Concurrence	Reed
Concurrence	Frankfurter, joined by Jackson, Burton
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952)^[2], was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which largely marked the decline of motion picture censorship in the United States.^[1] It determined that certain provisions of the New York Education Law allowing a censor to forbid the commercial showing of any non-licensed motion picture film, or revoke or deny the license of a film deemed to be "sacrilegious," was a "restraint on freedom of speech" and thereby a violation of the First Amendment. By way of this, the decision defined film as an artistic medium protected by the Constitution's guarantee of free speech. In so doing, the Court overturned its previous decision in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915), which found that movies were not an art form worthy of First Amendment protection, but merely a business.

Background

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court by film distributor Joseph Burstyn following the rescinding of the license allowing the exhibition of the short film "The Miracle". Burstyn was the distributor of the subtitled English versions in the U.S., and the movie was directed by Italian neorealist film director Roberto Rossellini. The film's plot centered around a man, "Saint Joseph" (played by director Federico Fellini), who villainously impregnates "Nanni" (Anna Magnani), a disturbed peasant who believes herself to be the Virgin Mary. Fellini and Rossellini also co-wrote the script for "The Miracle".

"The Miracle" originally premiered in Europe in 1948 as the anthology film L'Amore with two segments, "Il Miracolo" and "La voce umana", the latter based on Jean Cocteau's play The Human Voice and also starring Magnani. The film was first shown in New York in November 1950, presented under the title Ways of Love, with English subtitles. In December, Ways of Love was voted the best foreign language film of 1950 by the New York Film Critics Circle.

"The Miracle" in particular sparked widespread moral outrage, and was criticized as "vile, harmful and blasphemous."^[2] Protesters in Paris picketed the film with vitriolic signs carrying messages like "This Picture Is an Insult to Every Decent Woman and Her Mother," "Don't Be a Communist," and "Don't Enter the Cesspool." ^[3]

After its American release, The New York State Board of Regents reportedly received "hundreds of letters, telegrams, post cards, affidavits and other communications" contrastingly protesting and defending the exhibition of the film. Three members of the Board were subsequently ordered to examine it; they concluded that The Miracle was "sacrilegious" and directed the appellants to show otherwise at a hearing. The hearing determined that it was indeed religious bigotry and on February 16, 1951, the Commissioner of Education was ordered to rescind the picture's license.^[4]

The Appellant brought this decision to the New York courts for review, on the grounds that the statute "violates the First Amendment as a prior restraint upon freedom of speech and of the press," "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 "that the term 'sacrilegious' is so vague and indefinite as to offend due process."

Relevant statute provisions

The part of the statute (N. Y. Education Law, §122) in question that forbade the exhibition of unlicensed films read:

[It is 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...

The paragraph allowing the repeal of "sacrilegious" films' license read:

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.

Still-existing laws

Despite this case having made them unenforceable, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania still have blasphemy laws on the books.

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 343
• Freedman v. Maryland

References

1. ^ Jowett, G. (1996). "A significant medium for the communication of ideas": The Miracle decision and the decline of motion picture censorship, 1952-1968. Movie censorship and American culture, 258-276. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
2. ^ Kozlovic, Anton Karl (2003). Religious Film Fears 1: Satanic Infusion, Graven Images and Iconographic Perversion, 5 (2-3).
3. ^ Black, G. D. (1998). The Catholic crusade against the movies, 1940-1975. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. ^ [1] "Rossellini's Religious Films"

External links

• ^ Text of Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson , 343 U.S. 495 (1952) is available from: Justia · Findlaw · BC

• First Amendment Center
• Freedom Forum: Landmark decision brought freedom to films
• L'Amore (1948) at Internet Movie Database