| Joseph Burstyn, Inc V. Wilson |
Article Index for Joseph |
Website Links For Joseph |
Information AboutJoseph Burstyn, Inc V. Wilson |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC V. WILSON | |
| 1952 in law | |
| united states supreme court cases | |
| united states first amendment case law | |
| united states fourteenth amendment case law | |
| landmark cases | |
| united states free speech case law | |
|
BACKGROUND The case was invoked to the Supreme Court by Joseph Burstyn following the rescindment of the license of the short film '' The Miracle ''. Burstyn was the (subtitled) English version's distributer; the movie was the work of Italian Neorealist Roberto Rossellini. It centred around a man, "Saint Joseph", who villainously Impregnates "Nanni", a disturbed peasant who believes herself to be the Virgin Mary . The film sparked widespread moral outrage, and was criticized as "vile, harmful and blasphemous."Kozlovic, Anton Karl (2003). '' Religious Film Fears 1: Satanic Infusion, Graven Images and Iconographic Perversion '', 5 (2-3). 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." Black, G. D. (1998). ''The Catholic crusade against the movies, 1940-1975.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. After its American release, The New York State Board of Regents reportedly received "hundreds of letters, telegrams, Post Card s, Affidavit s 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 Appelant 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 is 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, ยง 122) in question that forbade the exhibition of unlicensed films read: ''" is 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 specified exceptions not relevant here , unless there is 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 picture division the 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 shall not license any film submitted, he shall 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.''" NOTES EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|