JOSEPH BURSTYN INC V WILSON 343 U.S 495 1952 JOSEPH BURSTYN INC V WILSON U.S CONSTITUTION U.S GOV'T JUDICIAL ARTS U.S GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION SIGNIFICANCE THIS RULING ESTABLISHED THAT FILM WAS PROTECTED BY THE SAME FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AS OTHER MEDIA THIS RULING WAS IN CONTRAST TO THE SUPREME COURT'S EARLIER RULING IN MUTUAL FILM CORPORATION V INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO 1915 WHICH HELD THAT FILM WAS AN UNPROTECTED MEDIUM BACKGROUND IN NEW YORK A STATUTE BANNED THE SALE OR EXHIBITION OF MOTION PICTURES THAT WERE JUDGED TO BE IMPROPER BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE STATE'S MOTION PICTURE DIVISION JOSEPH BURSTYN INC A MOTION PICTURE DISTRIBUTION HOUSE OWNED THE RIGHTS TO A FILM CALLED THE MIRACLE WHICH THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF REGENTS PULLED FROM EXHIBITION AFTER A PUBLIC CONTROVERSY SOME PEOPLE OBJECTED TO THE MOVIE'S TREATMENT OF RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS BURSTYN SUED WILSON THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION OF NEW YORK CLAIMING THAT THE STATUTE VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION'S PROTECTION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE AND BECAUSE OF THE VAGUENESS OF THE STATUTE'S STANDARDS DUE PROCESS OF LAW DECISION THIS CASE WAS ARGUED ON APRIL 24 1952 AND DECIDED ON MAY 26 1952 JUSTICE TOM CLARK SPOKE FOR THE COURT WHICH RULED IN FAVOR OF BURSTYN THE COURT CONCENTRATED ON THE VIOLATION OF FREEDOMS OF SPEECH AND THE PRESS INDICATING THAT FILMS DESERVED THE SAME FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION AS NEWSPAPERS OR BOOKS BECAUSE OF THEIR IMPORTANCE AS A FORM OF EXPRESSION EXCERPT FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT MOTION PICTURES ARE A SIGNIFICANT MEDIUM FOR THE COMMUNICATION OF IDEAS THEY MAY AFFECT PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR IN A VARIETY OF WAYS RANGING FROM DIRECT ESPOUSAL SUPPORT OF A POLITICAL OR SOCIAL DOCTRINE TO THE SUBTLE SHAPING OF THOUGHT WHICH CHARACTERIZES ALL ARTISTIC EXPRESSION THE IMPORTANCE OF MOTION PICTURES AS AN ORGAN OF PUBLIC OPINION IS NOT LESSENED BY THE FACT THAT THEY ARE DESIGNED TO ENTERTAIN AS WELL AS INFORM
