Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago

Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, or Times v. City of Chicago is the name of two cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1957 and 1961. Both involved the issue of limits on freedom of expression in connection with motion pictures . In both cases the court affirmed the right of local governments to engage in some form of censorship .

Within a few years after the second decision, however, the court had dramatically reversed itself, coming down in favor of broad First Amendment freedoms for filmmakers.

Contents

• 1 1957 case

• 2 1961 case

  • 2.1 Background and procedural history

  • 2.2 Opinion of the Court

  • 2.3 Dissenting opinions

    • 2.3.1 Warren's dissent

    • 2.3.2 Douglas dissent

  • 2.4 Legacy

• 3 References

1957 case

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Times_Film_Corp._v._City_of_Chicago&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: 1957 case")

The first case, 355 U.S. 35 (1957), was decided on November 12, 1957.

A Chicago ordinance required that before being permitted to screen any film in the city, exhibitors submit the film to the police commissioner's office and pay a license fee. The license to show the film could be denied if the film did not meet certain standards; this denial could be appealed to the mayor, whose decision would be final.

The petitioner wished to exhibit _Le blé en herbe _ (The Game of Love), a French film directed by Claude Autant-Lara and based on a novel by Colette . The film depicted a sexual relationship between an adult woman and a teenage boy.

On May 6, 1955, the petitioner applied for an exhibition permit. On June 2, 1955, the police commissioner denied the permit because the film was indecent. On June 6, the petitioner appealed the decision to the mayor, Richard J. Daley . On June 20, the appeal was denied.

The petitioner then sued the city in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois , choosing a federal court because of diversity of citizenship and because the petitioner was alleging infringement by municipal authorities of the petitioner's rights under the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution . A report by a master in chancery found that the film's sexual content did not violate any law, citing _ACLU v. Chicago _; that state interests did not justify an ordinance authorizing prior restraint on freedom of expression; and that the Chicago ordinance was vague and thus unconstitutional . The master did allow for a prohibition against persons under eighteen years of age viewing the film.

After the defendants objected to the Master's Report, the District Court issued its ruling on March 21, 1956, sustained their objections, calling the film prurient and stating that the First Amendment still allows local authorities to censor films deemed obscene, noting that the right to free speech under the First Amendment is "not absolute and unlimited.” The court cited _Near v. Minnesota _; _Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire _; and _Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson _. The court also asserted that the terms "immoral" or "obscene" were not too vague to merit the ordinance unconstitutional.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, maintaining that the film's main purpose and effect was “to arouse sexual desires” much more than any other artistic purpose. The U.S. Supreme Court , in a decision announced on November 12, 1957, agreed. The Court issued a one-sentence per curiam opinion, granting the petition for a writ of certiorari and summarily reversing the judgment of the Seventh Circuit. The decision simply cited an earlier 1957 case, _Alberts v. California _, in which a 6–3 majority, in a decision written by Justice Brennan, had held that obscenity was “not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press” and that the First Amendment was not intended to protect materials that were “utterly without redeeming social importance.”

1961 case

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Times_Film_Corp._v._City_of_Chicago&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: 1961 case")

Background and procedural history

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Times_Film_Corp._v._City_of_Chicago&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Background and procedural history")

In Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, 365 U.S. 43, Times Film Corp. once again wanted to show a film in Chicago but was denied a permit. This time the film was entitled _Don Juan _. The petitioner paid the license fee but refused to submit the film for examination. When the permit was refused, the corporation sued the city in federal court, arguing that the ordinance violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The U.S. District Court of Northern Illinois dismissed the suit, stating that it presented no justiciable controversy; the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed, concluding that since neither the film nor evidence of its content had been presented, the case merely presented an abstract question of law.

The United States Supreme Court, however, agreed to adjudicate the case, in which the Times Film Corp. was represented by the ACLU . The Court heard the case on October 19, 1960, and issued its ruling on January 23, 1961. It found against Times Film Corp. on the grounds that it was not challenging the validity of the censor's standards but was challenging the censor's very right to censor.

Opinion of the Court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Times_Film_Corp._v._City_of_Chicago&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")

The Court ruled, 5–4, that “there is not a word in the record as to the nature and content of 'Don Juan'” and that “[t]he challenge here is to the censor's basic authority.” Citing _Gitlow v. New York _, the court stated, “It has never been held that liberty of speech is absolute. Nor has it been suggested that all previous restraints on speech are invalid.” The court rejected the petitioner's argument against prior restraint, maintaining that it was not the Court's job “to limit the State in its selection of the remedy it deems most effective to cope” with the problem of obscenity in films.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Clark , with Justices Frankfurter , Harlan , Whittaker , and Stewart joining in the majority opinion.

Dissenting opinions

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Times_Film_Corp._v._City_of_Chicago&action=edit&section=5 "Ed

…