Freedman v. Maryland

Last updated

Freedman v. Maryland
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 19, 1964
Decided March 1, 1965
Full case nameFreedman v. Maryland
Citations380 U.S. 51 ( more )
85 S. Ct. 734; 13 L. Ed. 2d 649; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1732; 1 Media L. Rep. 1126
Holding
The Maryland law is unconstitutional, since it provides the danger of unduly suppressing protected expression.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark  · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Arthur Goldberg
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceDouglas, joined by Black

Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case that ended government-operated rating boards with a decision that a rating board could only approve a film and had no power to ban a film. The ruling also concluded that a rating board must either approve a film within a reasonable time, or go to court to stop a film from being shown in theatres. Other court cases determined that television stations are federally licensed, so local rating boards have no jurisdiction over films shown on television. When the movie industry set up its own rating system—the Motion Picture Association of America—most state and local boards ceased operating. [1]

Contents

Background

Ronald Freedman challenged the law of Maryland that films must be submitted to the Maryland State Board of Censors before being shown in theaters, claiming it unconstitutional; violating freedom of expression granted by the First Amendment.

Opinion of the Court

In a unanimous opinion by Justice Brennan, the Court held that a rating board could only approve a film and had no power to ban a film.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hays Code</span> U.S. film studio self-censorship rules (1930–1967)

The Motion Picture Production Code was a set of industry guidelines for the self-censorship of content that was applied to most motion pictures released by major studios in the United States from 1934 to 1968. It is also popularly known as the Hays Code, after Will H. Hays, president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) from 1922 to 1945. Under Hays's leadership, the MPPDA, later the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Motion Picture Association (MPA), adopted the Production Code in 1930 and began rigidly enforcing it in 1934. The Production Code spelled out acceptable and unacceptable content for motion pictures produced for a public audience in the United States.

Prior restraint is censorship imposed, usually by a government or institution, on expression, that prohibits particular instances of expression. It is in contrast to censorship that establishes general subject matter restrictions and reviews a particular instance of expression only after the expression has taken place.

The National Legion of Decency, also known as the Catholic Legion of Decency, was a Catholic group founded in 1934 by the Archbishop of Cincinnati, John T. McNicholas, as an organization dedicated to identifying objectionable content in motion pictures on behalf of Catholic audiences. Members were asked to pledge to patronize only those motion pictures which did not "offend decency and Christian morality". The concept soon gained support from other churches.

The Ontario Film Review Board is an inactive agency of the government of the Canadian province of Ontario that was formerly responsible for that province's motion picture rating system. Until 2015, the board reported to the Minister of Consumer Services but as of 1 October 2015, the board was overseen by the Ontario Film Authority. The board's activities were based on the Film Classification Act, 2005.

The Maryland State Board of Censors was a three-member agency in the U.S. state of Maryland from 1916 to 1981. No film could be officially released in the state without the approval of the board, which granted licenses to films it found "moral and proper".

In Canada, appeals by the judiciary to community standards and the public interest are the ultimate determinants of which forms of expression may legally be published, broadcast, or otherwise publicly disseminated. Other public organisations with the authority to censor include some tribunals and courts under provincial human rights laws, and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, along with self-policing associations of private corporations such as the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.

Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952), also referred to as the Miracle Decision, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that largely marked the decline of motion picture censorship in the United States. It determined that provisions of the New York Education Law that had allowed a censor to forbid the commercial showing of a motion picture film that the censor deemed "sacrilegious" were a "restraint on freedom of speech" and thereby a violation of the First Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Film censorship</span> Films that are banned in a particular country

Film censorship is the censorship of motion pictures, either through the excising of certain frames or scenes, or outright banning of films in their entirety. Film censorship typically occurs as a result of political or moral objections to a film's content; controversial content subject to censorship include the depiction of graphic violence, sexual situations, or racial themes. Censorship standards vary widely by country, and can vary within an individual country over time.

The Motion Picture Division of the State of New York Education Department, also known variously as the New York State Censorship Board, New York Censor Board, and New York Board of Censors, was an organ of film censorship in the Pre-Code film era.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Movie and Television Review and Classification Board</span> Philippine government agency for classification of programs and movies

The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board is a Philippine government agency under the Office of the President of the Philippines that is responsible for the classification and review of television programs, motion pictures and home videos.

Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling by a 9–0 vote that the free speech protection of the Ohio Constitution, which was substantially similar to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, did not extend to motion pictures.

The Manitoba Film Classification Board (MFCB) was a provincial government organization responsible for rating films and video games rented, sold, or shown in the province of Manitoba. In mid 2018, the Board was dissolved, with its duties being outsourced to British Columbia for film classifications, and transferred to the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) for video games.

The Film Classification Act, 2005 is a statute which governs motion picture and computer game ratings in the province of Ontario, Canada. The law also provides the legal basis for the activities of the Ontario Film Review Board. Prior to this, film censorship and classification in Ontario was mandated first by the Theatres and Cinematographs Act, 1911 then the Theatres Act, 1953.

At various points in South Korea's history, the social influence of film prompted the government to place strict regulations setting out guidelines that films must follow in order to be viewed by the public. There are two major periods where film censorship strongly impacted the growth of the film industry in South Korea: the period of colonial Korea under Japanese rule and the period of military dictatorship in the mid-twentieth century, when the film industry was heavily surveilled. During these two periods, filmmakers were barred from freely expressing their creativity, thoughts, and ideas, some believe these restrictions led to the decline of the film industry in South Korea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Film censorship in the United States</span> Motion Picture Industry

Film censorship in the United States was a frequent feature of the industry almost from the beginning of the U.S. motion picture industry until the end of strong self-regulation in 1966. Court rulings in the 1950s and 1960s severely constrained government censorship, though statewide regulation lasted until at least the 1980s.

United States obscenity law deals with the regulation or suppression of what is considered obscenity and therefore not protected speech or expression under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the United States, discussion of obscenity typically relates to defining what pornography is obscene. Issues of obscenity arise at federal and state levels. State laws operate only within the jurisdiction of each state, and state laws on obscenity differ. Federal statutes ban obscenity and child pornography produced with real children. Federal law also bans broadcasting of "indecent" material during specified hours.

The Virginia State Board of Censors was a government agency formed on August 1, 1922 for the purpose of reviewing and licensing films for approval to be screened in the state of Virginia. During the agency's existence its members examined over 52,000 films, over 2,000 of which required edits before approval was given; and another 157 films were rejected entirely, of which only 38 won subsequent approval. The board disbanded in 1968 following a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings which overturned censorship statutes across the country.

In the Philippines, censorship involves the control of certain information.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chicago Board of Censors</span>

The Chicago Board of Censors was a film censorship committee based in Chicago that was founded in 1907 as the Police Censor Board, and operated until 1984. It was the first film censorship board in the United States. The board had great influence over the editing and distribution of many films.

Holmby Productions, Inc. v. Vaughn, 177 Kan. 728 (1955), 282 P.2d 412, is a Kansas Supreme Court case in which the Kansas State Board of Review, the state censorship board, and the attorney defendants appealed the decision of the District Court of Wyandotte County. It was found that the law that allowed the board to deny a request for a permit allowing United Artists to show the motion picture The Moon is Blue in Kansas theaters was unconstitutional, and an injunction was issued prohibiting the defendants from stopping the exhibition of the film in Kansas.

References

  1. Wittern-Keller, Laura. "Freedman v. Maryland". www.mtsu.edu. Retrieved March 22, 2023.

Further reading