Freedman v. Maryland case brief summary
380 U.S. 51 (1965)
CASE FACTS
Defendant wished to challenge the constitutionality of a state censorship statute that required submission of all motion pictures to the Board prior to their exhibition. He exhibited a film without first submitting it to the Board and was subsequently convicted of violating the statute, Md. Code Ann. art. 66A, § 2 (1957). The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, and on appeal of that decision the reviewing court ruled in favor of defendant.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
Defendant's conviction for violation of a statute censorship statute was reversed.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Constitutional Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.
380 U.S. 51 (1965)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant appealed from a judgment of
the Court of Appeals of Maryland, which affirmed his conviction for
exhibiting a motion picture at his theatre without first submitting
the picture to the State Board of Censors (Board) as required by Md.
Code Ann. art. 66A, § 2 (1957).CASE FACTS
Defendant wished to challenge the constitutionality of a state censorship statute that required submission of all motion pictures to the Board prior to their exhibition. He exhibited a film without first submitting it to the Board and was subsequently convicted of violating the statute, Md. Code Ann. art. 66A, § 2 (1957). The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, and on appeal of that decision the reviewing court ruled in favor of defendant.
DISCUSSION
- The Court held that defendant's refusal to submit the film to the Board in violation only of § 2 did not restrict defendant to an attack on that section alone.
- The Court found validity in defendant's contention that § 2 effected an invalid prior restraint on the freedom of speech because the structure of the other provisions of the statute contributed to the infirmity of § 2, and that he did not assert that the other provisions were independently invalid.
- The Court found that the statute lacked sufficient safeguards against undue inhibition of protected expression, and that rendered the § 2 requirement of prior submission of films to the Board an invalid previous restraint in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
CONCLUSION
Defendant's conviction for violation of a statute censorship statute was reversed.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Constitutional Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.
No comments:
Post a Comment