Appellant
Joseph Burstyn, Inc.
Appellee
Lewis A. Wilson, New York Commissioner of Education
Appellant's Claim
The New York State should not have banned the showing of the film The Miracle on the grounds that the film was "sacrilegious."
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Ephraim S. London
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
Charles A. Brind, Jr., and Wendell P. Brown, Solicitor General of New York
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Harold Burton, Tom C. Clark (writing for the Court), William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Sherman Minton, Stanley Forman Reed, Fred Moore Vinson
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
26 May 1952
Decision
That New York should not permit a censor to restrict films on the grounds of"sacrilege."
Significance
This decision definitively established motion pictures as part of the "press"and therefore protected by the First Amendment. The decision condemned any use of religious notions as a means of making governmental decisions, and it also condemned vagueness in any language that concerned censorship.
In late 1950, an Italian film directed by world-famous director Roberto Rossellini and featuring the international star Anna Magnani opened at the Paris Theatre in New York. This was the unlikely beginning of one of the Supreme Court's key rulings on censorship, the film industry, and the separation of church and state.
A Controversial Film
In the words of film critic Bosley Crowther (quoted in one of the Supreme Court decisions), The Miracle was the story of a "poor, simple-minded girl" who tends goats on a mountain in rural Italy. One day she meets a beardedstranger, whom she decides is "St. Joseph, her favorite saint, and that he has come to take her to heaven, where she will be happy and free." The strangergives the girl wine and "apparently ravishes her." When she wakes up, the stranger is gone, and she has no idea whether he was real or a dream. She meetsan old priest who says that perhaps she did see a saint. Eventually, the village women discover that the girl is going to have a child, whom she believesto be the son of St. Joseph. Mocked by the villagers, the girl becomes an outcast. As her time approaches, she finds a small, deserted church, where shegives birth. Then, as Crowther described it:
When the film was first shown at the Venice Film Festival, it was reviewed byL'Osservatore Romano the official newspaper of the Vatican. Althoughthe critic, Piero Regnoli, found the film "pretentiously cerebral," he affirmed that "we continue to believe in Rosselini's art and we look forward to hisnext achievement."
When the 40-minute film was shown in New York--as part of a trilogy entitledWays of Love--it was promptly attacked as "a sacrilegious and blasphemous mockery of Christian religious truth" by the national Legion of Decency,a private Catholic organization for film censorship whose rulings on films had considerable influence both in Hollywood and among the general public, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. On the other hand, New York film critics voted the trilogy "best foreign film" of 1950.
Sacrilege or Art?
In order to be shown in New York, a film had to be licensed by the state's Department of Education, under the supervision of the Board of Regents. A filmcould not get a license if:
The Miracle had already been granted a license. But after it was shown, the New York State Board of Regents received "hundreds of letters, telegrams, post cards, affidavits and other communications" both protesting against and defending the movie. As a result, the regents took another look at the movie, and decided to rescind its license on the grounds that it was indeed "sacrilegious."
The regents had to consider that the notion of "sacrilege" is a tricky one, for it comes from within religion, not from any governmental or legal tradition. Joseph Burstyn, Inc., the film distributor, immediately brought suit against the regents' action, claiming that the licensing statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment by restraining freedom of speech and press, by breaking downthe separation between church and state, and by making use of such a vague term making due process of law impossible.
When Burstyn's case made it to the New York Supreme Court, the judges upheldthe state law, including its use of the term "sacrilegious." As that court held, there was "nothing mysterious" about the law or the term:
Movies as Free Press
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, found that the New York law was unconstitutional, offending both the First and the Fourteenth Amendments. The High Court struck down the law and affirmed Joseph Burstyn, Inc.'s right to show The Miracle in New York State. However, in the course of handing down their decision, they did far more than that.
The majority decision, written by Justice Clark, established that motion pictures were now to be considered as an aspect of free speech and free press. The Court considered the argument that because movies are made for profit by large businesses, they do not constitute "free speech." It also considered theargument that motion pictures posses "a greater capacity for evil" than othertypes of expression, particularly in their ability to corrupt young people,and that therefore, they needed to be regulated more than other types of expression.
Yet the Court found both of these arguments unconvincing. Even if movies needed some regulation, Clark wrote, even if they needed more regulation than, say, books or newspapers, they still should not be subject to the kind of sweeping censorship inherent in the New York law.
Both Justice Clark and Justice Frankfurter, who wrote a concurring opinion, held that state government had no business prohibiting movies on the grounds that they were "sacrilegious." (The Court left open the possibility that movies could be prohibited for being "obscene.") As Frankfurter wrote:
Related Cases
Sacrilege and the Arts
Religion has often found its way into contemporary artistic works. Occasionally, these depictions are an artist's interpretation of an event, and hold a great deal of religious meaning. Recently, there have been increasing instances when artistic license intermingles with religious art and leads to what some view as the ridiculing of religious belief, or even presenting the holy asperverse or provocative.
Sacrilege means irreverence of a religious place, person, concept, or viewpoint. The broad term encompasses expression ranging from profanity, mockery, and scorn, to desecration of anything holy using repulsive, shocking, hostile religious imagery. No faith is immune to harsh attacks but Christianity is a prime target.
Courts struggle with legislation outlawing sacrilege. The term is vague and indefinite. What to one individual is amusement may be blasphemous mockery toanother. Laws against sacrilege are frequently considered constitutionally vague since the term is so imprecise. Exactly what is prohibited can often notbe distinguished.
Sources
"Why Is the Public When Confronted with Openly Anti-Catholic Imagery, Amusedor Indifferent? What Are the Limits? Where Is the Outrage?"The New York Times, 16 May 1998.
Joseph Burstyn, Inc.
Appellee
Lewis A. Wilson, New York Commissioner of Education
Appellant's Claim
The New York State should not have banned the showing of the film The Miracle on the grounds that the film was "sacrilegious."
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Ephraim S. London
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
Charles A. Brind, Jr., and Wendell P. Brown, Solicitor General of New York
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Harold Burton, Tom C. Clark (writing for the Court), William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Sherman Minton, Stanley Forman Reed, Fred Moore Vinson
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
26 May 1952
Decision
That New York should not permit a censor to restrict films on the grounds of"sacrilege."
Significance
This decision definitively established motion pictures as part of the "press"and therefore protected by the First Amendment. The decision condemned any use of religious notions as a means of making governmental decisions, and it also condemned vagueness in any language that concerned censorship.
In late 1950, an Italian film directed by world-famous director Roberto Rossellini and featuring the international star Anna Magnani opened at the Paris Theatre in New York. This was the unlikely beginning of one of the Supreme Court's key rulings on censorship, the film industry, and the separation of church and state.
A Controversial Film
In the words of film critic Bosley Crowther (quoted in one of the Supreme Court decisions), The Miracle was the story of a "poor, simple-minded girl" who tends goats on a mountain in rural Italy. One day she meets a beardedstranger, whom she decides is "St. Joseph, her favorite saint, and that he has come to take her to heaven, where she will be happy and free." The strangergives the girl wine and "apparently ravishes her." When she wakes up, the stranger is gone, and she has no idea whether he was real or a dream. She meetsan old priest who says that perhaps she did see a saint. Eventually, the village women discover that the girl is going to have a child, whom she believesto be the son of St. Joseph. Mocked by the villagers, the girl becomes an outcast. As her time approaches, she finds a small, deserted church, where shegives birth. Then, as Crowther described it:
There is a dissolve,and when we next see her sad face, in close-up, it is full of a tender light.There is the cry of an unseen baby. The girl reaches towards it and murmurs,"My son! My love! My flesh!"
When the film was first shown at the Venice Film Festival, it was reviewed byL'Osservatore Romano the official newspaper of the Vatican. Althoughthe critic, Piero Regnoli, found the film "pretentiously cerebral," he affirmed that "we continue to believe in Rosselini's art and we look forward to hisnext achievement."
When the 40-minute film was shown in New York--as part of a trilogy entitledWays of Love--it was promptly attacked as "a sacrilegious and blasphemous mockery of Christian religious truth" by the national Legion of Decency,a private Catholic organization for film censorship whose rulings on films had considerable influence both in Hollywood and among the general public, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. On the other hand, New York film critics voted the trilogy "best foreign film" of 1950.
Sacrilege or Art?
In order to be shown in New York, a film had to be licensed by the state's Department of Education, under the supervision of the Board of Regents. A filmcould not get a license if:
. . . such film or a part thereof isobscene, indecent, immoral, inhuman, sacrilegious, or is of such a characterthat its exhibition would tend to corrupt morals or incite to crime . . .
The Miracle had already been granted a license. But after it was shown, the New York State Board of Regents received "hundreds of letters, telegrams, post cards, affidavits and other communications" both protesting against and defending the movie. As a result, the regents took another look at the movie, and decided to rescind its license on the grounds that it was indeed "sacrilegious."
The regents had to consider that the notion of "sacrilege" is a tricky one, for it comes from within religion, not from any governmental or legal tradition. Joseph Burstyn, Inc., the film distributor, immediately brought suit against the regents' action, claiming that the licensing statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment by restraining freedom of speech and press, by breaking downthe separation between church and state, and by making use of such a vague term making due process of law impossible.
When Burstyn's case made it to the New York Supreme Court, the judges upheldthe state law, including its use of the term "sacrilegious." As that court held, there was "nothing mysterious" about the law or the term:
It is simply this: that no religion, as that word is understood by the ordinary,reasonable person, shall be treated with contempt, mockery, scorn and ridicule . . .
Movies as Free Press
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, found that the New York law was unconstitutional, offending both the First and the Fourteenth Amendments. The High Court struck down the law and affirmed Joseph Burstyn, Inc.'s right to show The Miracle in New York State. However, in the course of handing down their decision, they did far more than that.
The majority decision, written by Justice Clark, established that motion pictures were now to be considered as an aspect of free speech and free press. The Court considered the argument that because movies are made for profit by large businesses, they do not constitute "free speech." It also considered theargument that motion pictures posses "a greater capacity for evil" than othertypes of expression, particularly in their ability to corrupt young people,and that therefore, they needed to be regulated more than other types of expression.
Yet the Court found both of these arguments unconvincing. Even if movies needed some regulation, Clark wrote, even if they needed more regulation than, say, books or newspapers, they still should not be subject to the kind of sweeping censorship inherent in the New York law.
Both Justice Clark and Justice Frankfurter, who wrote a concurring opinion, held that state government had no business prohibiting movies on the grounds that they were "sacrilegious." (The Court left open the possibility that movies could be prohibited for being "obscene.") As Frankfurter wrote:
A motion picture portraying Christ as divine--for example, a movie showing medieval Church art--would offend the religious opinions of the members of several Protestant denominations who do not believe in the Trinity, as well as those of a non-Christian faith. Conversely, one showing Christ as merely an ethical teacher could not but offend millions of Christians of many denominations. Which is "sacrilegious"? . . . To allow such vague, undefinable powers ofcensorship to be exercised is bound to have stultifying consequences on the creative process of literature and art . . . We not only do not know but cannot know what is condemnable by "sacrilegious." Frankfurter essentially questioned how anyone, save those to be governed by the statute could tell what was"sacrilegious."
Related Cases
- Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964).
- Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (1974).
Sacrilege and the Arts
Religion has often found its way into contemporary artistic works. Occasionally, these depictions are an artist's interpretation of an event, and hold a great deal of religious meaning. Recently, there have been increasing instances when artistic license intermingles with religious art and leads to what some view as the ridiculing of religious belief, or even presenting the holy asperverse or provocative.
Sacrilege means irreverence of a religious place, person, concept, or viewpoint. The broad term encompasses expression ranging from profanity, mockery, and scorn, to desecration of anything holy using repulsive, shocking, hostile religious imagery. No faith is immune to harsh attacks but Christianity is a prime target.
Courts struggle with legislation outlawing sacrilege. The term is vague and indefinite. What to one individual is amusement may be blasphemous mockery toanother. Laws against sacrilege are frequently considered constitutionally vague since the term is so imprecise. Exactly what is prohibited can often notbe distinguished.
Sources
"Why Is the Public When Confronted with Openly Anti-Catholic Imagery, Amusedor Indifferent? What Are the Limits? Where Is the Outrage?"The New York Times, 16 May 1998.
Further Readings
- Bartholomew, Paul C. American Constitutional Law, Limitations on Government. Vol. II. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, 1970, 1978.
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
User Comments Add a comment…