Document: 380 U.S. 51 85 S.Ct. 734 13 L.Ed.2d 649 Ronald L. FREEDMAN, Appellant,v.STATE OF MARYLAND. No. 69. Argued Nov. 19, 1964. Decided March 1, 1965. Felix J. Bilgrey, New York City, for appellant. Thomas B. Finan, Baltimore, Md., appellee. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Appellant sought to challenge constitutionality Maryland motion picture censorship statute, Md.Ann.Code, 1957, Art. 66A, and exhibited film 'Revenge at Daybreak' his Baltimore theatre without first submitting State Board Censors as required by § 2 thereof.1 The concedes that does not violate statutory standards2 would have received a license if properly submitted, but appellant was convicted violation despite contention statute in its entirety unconstitutionally impaired freedom expression. Court Appeals affirmed, 233 Md. 498, 197 A.2d 232, we noted probable jurisdiction, 377 987, 84 1919, 12 1042. We reverse. I. In Times Film Copr. v. City Chicago, 365 43, 81 391, 5 403, considered upheld requirement submission pictures advance exhibition. held, on authority decision, 'the law must be held void face violative freedoms protected against action First Fourteenth Amendments.' 505, A.2d, 235. This reliance misplaced. only question tendered decision case 'whether prior restraint necessarily unconstitutional under all circumstances.' Bantam Books, Inc. Sullivan, 372 58, 70, n. 10, 83 631, 639, 6 584 (emphasis original). exhibitor's argument more amounted constitutionally prohibited interpreted 'constitutional protection includes complete absolute exhibit, least once, any every kind picture. * even this contains basest type pornography, or incitement riot, forceful overthrow orderly government *.' U.S., 46, 47, S.Ct., 393. 'narrow' question, id., 393, stated principle restraints too broadly; citing number our decisions, quoted statement from Near Minnesota, 283 697, 716, 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357, '(t)he previous is absolutely unlimited.' rejecting proffered proposition emphasized, however, '(i)t alone which decide,' it therefore inaccurate say specific features Chicago ordinance. 3 Unlike petitioner Film, argue simply because may prevent showing whose exhibiting legitimately subject an obscenity prosecution. He presents quite distinct passed Film; accepting rule he argues constitutes invalid because, context remainder danger unduly suppressing focuses particularly procedure initial board, which, judicial participation, effectively bars exhibition disapproved film, unless until exhibitor undertakes time-consuming appeal courts succeeds having Board's reversed. Under submit examination, no time limit imposed completion action, 17. If disapproved, elimination ordered, 19 provides 4 'The person such view examination will receive immediate notice disapproval, appealed from, promptly reexamined, presence person, two members Board, same finally approved after re-examination, with right City. There shall further Maryland, generally manner provided taking Appeals.' Thus there provision participation nor assurance prompt review. Risk delay built into procedure, borne out experience; reported indicating length appeal, determination has taken four months final vindication appellate review, six months. United Artists Corp. Censors, 210 586, 124 292. light difference between issues presented here n erred saying that, since appellant's refusal 2, 'he restricted himself attack section alone, lacks standing other provisions (or alleged shortcomings) statute.' 236. challenged vacuum concrete context. His effects structure contributes infirmity 2; assert are independently invalid. 7 area expression well established one ground delegates overly broad licensing discretion administrative office, whether conduct could proscribed drawn applied license. 'One who might had asking call whole scheme when prosecuted failure procure it.' Thornhill Alabama, 310 88, 97, 60 736, 742, 1093; see Staub Baxley, 355 313, 319, 78 277, 280—281, 302; Saia People York, 334 558, 68 1148, 92 1574; Collins, 323 516, 65 315, 89 430; Hague CIO, 307 496, 59 954, 1423; Lovell Griffin, 303 444, 452—453, 58 666, 669, 82 949. Standing recognized cases '* tolerating, Amendment freedoms, existence penal susceptible sweeping improper application.' NAACP Button, 371 145, 433, 328, 338, 9 405; also Amsterdam, Note, Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine Supreme Court, 109 U.Pa.L.Rev. 67, 75—76, 80—81, 96—104 (1960). Although occasion decide vice overbroadness infects statute,3 think assertion similar apparatus censorship—one always fraught viewed suspicion—gives him make challenge. substance operates review little late, sufficient safeguards confining censor's judicially determined constitutional limits, delegating excessive discretion. II. 8 said 'necessarily precise rules governing particular method expression,' Joseph Burstyn, Wilson, 343 495, 503, 72 777, 781, 96 1098, true forms '(a)ny system comes bearing heavy presumption validity.' supra, 639. (U)nder Amendment, free adopt whatever procedures pleases dealing regard possible consequences speech.' Marcus Search Warrant, 367 717, 731, 1708, 1716, 1127. administration peculiar dangers speech. prosecution obscenity, proceeding puts burden distributor. Because business censor, inheres less responsive than court—part independent branch government—to interests expression.4 And made onerous, reason otherwise, seek practice final. Applying settled cases, hold noncriminal process requires censor avoids takes place procedural designed obviate system. First, proving unprotected rest censor. As Speiser Randall, 357 513, 526, 1332, 1342, 1460, 'Where transcendent value speech involved, due certainly bear persuasion show appellants engaged criminal Second, while require films, order proceed bar showings cannot administered lend effect finality teaching adversary ensures necessary sensitivity expression, requiring suffices impose valid restraint. See supra; A Quantity Books Kansas, 378 205, 1723, 809; Manual Enterprises, Day, 370 478, 518—519, 1432, 1453—1454, To end, assured, authoritative construction, will, within specified brief period, either issue go court restrain film. Any merits similarly limited preservation status quo shortest fixed period compatible sound resolution. Moreover, aware expiration temporary restraint, license, signifying unprotected, discouraging exhibitor. supra. Therefore, assure minimize deterrent interim possibly erroneous denial 10 Without these safeguards, prove burdensome determination. Particularly pictures, take very deter given locality. stake insufficient warrant protracted onerous course litigation. distributor, hand, equally unwilling accept burdens delays litigation when, difficulties, can freely exhibit most country; told States handful municipalities active laws.5 11 It readily apparent satisfy criteria. once disapproves assume instituting proceedings persuading acted pending however protracted. been shown unsuccessfully seeking though ever ruled Third, abundantly clear hold, therefore, conviction fails provide adequate undue inhibition renders films III. How incorporate is, course, decide. But model lacking: Kingsley Brown, 354 436, 77 1325, 1469, injunctive sale obscene books. That postpones following hearing. hearing day joinder issue; judge hand down days termination chilling order, enforcement, suggests expeditious protected. sustained consistent recognition differ Similarly, nature industry suggest different limits common knowledge scheduled before actual exhibition, recognizes this. One allow distributor early enough ensure disposition date—far so safely advertise opening normal basis. Failing sufficiently scheme, adjudication considerably statute. Otherwise, expensive protracted, victorious find propitious opportunity past. do mean lay rigid procedures, considerations drafting legislation accord local practices, doing avoid potentially 14 Reversed. 15 DOUGLAS, whom BLACK joins, concurring. 16 On several occasions I indicated my movies entitled degree Superior Films Department Education, 346 587, 588, 74 286, 98 329; International Pictures Regents, 360 684, 79 1362, 1369, 1512; 78, 410, 406.* For reasons stated, believe form censorship—no matter how speedy prolonged be—is permissible. it, pictorial presentation occupies preferred position censors banned publishing business, pulpit, public platform—as they are—they should theatre. admit role accorded 1469. adhere dissent case. Id., 466—447, 1330—1331. obtain injunction gives paralyzing power censor.' 446, 1330. regime 'substitutes punishment contempt jury trial.' 477, 1331. put end types give full literal meaning command Amendment. 2: 'It unlawful sell, lease, lend, use sub mitted exchange, owner lessee duly licensed hereinafter article called Board.' 6: '(a) examine, approve disapprove films.—The examine supervise views used moral proper, obscene, tend, judgment debase corrupt morals incite crimes. All exclusively portraying current events news day, commonly reels, fees therefor. '(b) What obscene,—For purposes article, if, whole, calculated purpose dominant substantially arouse sexual desires, probability great outweigh possess. '(c) tend marals.—For character erotic pornographic; portays acts immorality, lust lewdness, expressly impliedly desirable, acceptable proper patterns behavior. '(d) crime.—For crime theme commission constituting profitable, acceptable, respectable accepted behavior, advocates teaches of, methods narcotics habit-forming drugs.' challenges 6, establishing standards, vagueness Due Process Clause; 11, imposing inspection tax upon exercise speech; 23, allowing exemptions various classes exhibitors, denying equal laws. result, express claims. Emerson, Prior Restraint, 20 Law & Contemp.Rpob. 648, 656—659 (1955). illustrated fact reversed disapproval Corp., 212 454, 129 833; Fanfare Films, Motion Picture Censor 234 839. An appendix amici curiae American Civil Liberties Union Branch lists Virginia Kansas three statutes cities Detroit, Fort Worth Providence ordinances. Twenty-eight remaining 39 municipal ordinances codes listed 'inactive.' today holds movie contain run afoul Amendment: (1) proceedings; (2) briefly preserve quo; (3) assured. system, narrowest margins survive today's dissenters pointed out. 73—75, 407—408.

Category: 2