Everything about Joseph Burstyn Inc V Wilson totally explained
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson,
343 U.S. 495 (
1952), was a
landmark decision by the
United States Supreme Court which largely marked the decline of motion picture
censorship in the United States. 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 invoked to the Supreme Court by
Joseph Burstyn following the rescindment of the license allowing the exhibition of the short film
The Miracle. Burstyn was the (subtitled) English version's distributor, and the movie was the work of
Italian neorealist film director
Roberto Rossellini. The film's plot centered around a man, "Saint Joseph", who villainously
impregnates "Nanni", a disturbed peasant who believes herself to be the
Virgin Mary.
The Miracle was first shown in New York in November 1950 with two other films, all presented as a trilogy entitled
Ways of Love, using English subtitles. In December,
Ways of Love was voted the best foreign-language film of 1950.
The Miracle sparked widespread moral outrage, and was criticized as "vile, harmful and blasphemous." 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."
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 sacrilegious and the Commissioner of Education was ordered to rescind the picture's license.
The Appellant brought this decision to the
New York courts for review, on the grounds that the statute "violates the
Fourteenth Amendment as a prior
restraint upon freedom of speech and of the press," "that it's 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:
"[Itis 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 [withspecified exceptions not relevant here], unless there's 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 [motionpicture] division [ofthe 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 shan't license any film submitted, he'll 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
Chapter 272 of the
Massachusetts General Laws states, for example:
» Section 36
. Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
Despite this clearly violating Burstyn v Wilson, this law is still on the books.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Joseph Burstyn Inc V Wilson'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://joseph_burstyn__inc_v__wilson.totallyexplained.com">Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
