Freedman v. Maryland

Background

A Baltimore exhibitor showed the film "Revenge at Daybreak" without first submitting it to the Maryland State Board of Censors as § 2 required. The State admitted the picture met the Board’s standards and would have been licensed, but the exhibitor was still convicted for failing to submit and lost in the Maryland courts.

Reasoning

The Court distinguished an earlier decision that narrowly addressed prior restraints and instead examined Maryland’s whole censorship scheme. It found the law let the Board bar a film without any required judicial role, put the burden on the exhibitor to seek court review, and had no guaranteed quick decision. The Court emphasized that prior restraints on speech are heavily disfavored and held that a submission requirement is constitutional only if it includes safeguards: the censor must bear the burden of proof, any pretrial restraint must be very brief, and a prompt judicial determination must be assured. Because Maryland’s statute lacked those protections and experience showed appeals could take many months, the Court reversed the conviction.

Real world impact

The decision protects theater owners, distributors, and filmmakers from being effectively silenced by slow censorship procedures. States that keep pre‑submission requirements must add prompt judicial review, time limits, and a rule that puts the burden on the censor. The Court did not rule on every part of the Maryland law or on what counts as obscene; it addressed only the procedure that allowed undue suppression of protected expression.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas (joined by Justice Black) went further, saying no movie censorship is ever permissible and arguing for a complete ban on censorship rather than procedural fixes.