Superior Films, Inc. v. Department of Ed. of Ohio
Headline: Limits state movie censorship: Court reverses judgments and affirms that film boards cannot ban or require prior approval of movies, strengthening protections for filmmakers and theaters.
Holding: The Court reversed lower-court judgments upholding state film censorship, relying on a prior holding that motion pictures are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and cannot be subject to prior government censorship.
- Makes it harder for state boards to ban films before public showing.
- Protects filmmakers and theaters from some state prior-approval requirements.
- Affirms movies as protected speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Summary
Background
Film companies from Ohio and New York challenged decisions by state film censorship boards that had blocked or regulated movies. The cases came from the Ohio Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals and were brought together for review. The basic dispute was whether states may operate boards that review and censor motion pictures before they are shown to the public.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court issued a brief per curiam order reversing the lower-court judgments and cited Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, which held that motion pictures fall within the free speech and press guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Douglas, joined by Justice Black, wrote separately to explain why government-run prior censorship is forbidden. He relied on earlier decisions that rejected prior restraints on newspapers and public speech, and argued that no medium—whether books, plays, radio, television, or movies—should be forced to get official approval before publishing or showing ideas.
Real world impact
By reversing the judgments and reaffirming that films are protected expression, the decision makes it harder for state authorities to run boards that demand prior submission or that ban movies before public exhibition. The ruling protects filmmakers, producers, and theaters from some state censorship practices and treats motion pictures like other protected forms of speech under the Constitution.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Douglas’s concurrence, joined by Justice Black, provided the main explanation of the constitutional history and reasons against prior restraint and reinforced the view that film censorship is incompatible with the First Amendment.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?