Freedman v. Maryland: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
|arguments=Freedman argued that the Maryland land was an unconstitutional '''prior restraint''' on his freedom of expression under the [[1st Amendment]]? | |arguments=Freedman argued that the Maryland land was an unconstitutional '''prior restraint''' on his freedom of expression under the [[1st Amendment]]? | ||
|holding=Maryland has violated the US Constitution by censoring films prior to public viewing in movie theaters because timely & impartial review of censorship decisions were lacking. | |holding=Maryland has violated the US Constitution by censoring films prior to public viewing in movie theaters because timely & impartial review of censorship decisions were lacking. | ||
|rule=[https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/349/freedman-v-maryland Film censorship statutes were based on the concept of '''prior restraint''']. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/freedman-v-maryland | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/freedman-v-maryland |
Revision as of 21:07, January 17, 2023
Freedman v. Maryland | |
Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
---|---|
Citation | |
Date decided | March 1, 1965 |
Facts
In 1965, Maryland law required a state board of censors to review movies for
- obscenity
- moral corruption
- likelihood of inciting crime.
Procedural History
Freeman loses in Maryland court & appealed to SCOTUS.
Issues
Without procedural safeguards of timely & impartial review of censors, can a state require prior restraint of movies in accordance with the US Constitution?
Arguments
Freedman argued that the Maryland land was an unconstitutional prior restraint on his freedom of expression under the 1st Amendment?
Holding
Maryland has violated the US Constitution by censoring films prior to public viewing in movie theaters because timely & impartial review of censorship decisions were lacking.
Rule
Resources
- Case text at Quimbee video summary
- Case text at Justia
- Case text at Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School