U.S. 444, 450 See also Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, "Blasphemy"; Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, "Blasphemy"; Nokes, A History of the Crime of Blasphemy (1928). [ 41 It is not without significance that talking pictures were first produced in 1926, eleven years after the Mutual decision. History teaches us the indefiniteness of the concept "sacrilegious" in another respect. Wilson (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court overruled a state supreme court decision and declared that governments had no business suppressing attacks on religious doctrines. U.S. 495, 520] Joseph Burstyn v. Wilso‪n‬ 72 S. CT. 777, 343 U.S. 495, 96 L. ED. 1-3: "it would be wise to time a visit to the Paris in order to skip [`The Miracle']. 31 522) Argued: April 24, 1952. The injuries which would constitute Footnote 54 U.S. 495, 499] ] See the following statement by Mr. Justice Roberts, speaking for a unanimous Court in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 242, 101 N. E. 2d 665. New York Board of Regents did not allow 'sacrilegious' film to be shown 283 As was said in Winters v. New York, [ 36 [ . [   [343 297 The Court declared "sacrilege" too vague a censorship standard to be permitted under the First Amendment. the question whether motion pictures are within the ambit of protection which the First Amendment, through the Fourteenth, secures to any form of ‘speech’ or ‘the press.’’’ The Court held ‘‘that motion pictures are a significant medium for the communication of ideas.’’ Writing for the Court, Justice Tom Clark recognized that the movies ‘‘may affect public attitudes and behavior in a variety of ways, ranging from direct espousal of a political or social doctrine to the subtle shaping of thought which characterizes all artistic expression.’’ The movies’ significance ‘‘as an organ of public opinion,’’ the Court observed, ‘‘is not lessened by the fact that they are designed to entertain as well as to inform.’’ Nor would the Court dilute constitutional protection for motion pictures on the ground that they ‘‘are published and sold for profit.’’ Like ‘‘books, newspapers, and magazines,’’ motion pictures won recognition as ‘‘a form of expression whose liberty is safeguarded by the First Amendment.’’ The Court thereupon included ‘‘expression by means of motion pictures . by those engaged in selling entertainment by way of motion pictures" does not violate the religious guarantee of the First Amendment; and third, that motion pictures are not entitled to the immunities from regulation enjoyed by the press, in view of the decision in Mutual Film Corp. v. Ohio Industrial Comm'n, Well-equipped law libraries are not niggardly in their reflection of "the sense and experience of men," but we must search elsewhere for any which gives to "sacrilege" its meaning. 217 (1939); In the Matter of "Monja y Casada - Virgen y Martir" ("Nun and Married - Virgin and Martyr"), 52 N. Y. St. Dept. Among the claims advanced by appellant were (1) that the statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment as a prior restraint upon freedom of speech and of the press; (2) that it is invalid under the same Amendment as a violation of the guaranty of separate church and state and as a prohibition of the free exercise of religion; and, (3) that the term "sacrilegious" is so vague and indefinite as to offend due process. Footnote 18 Appellant brought the present action in the New York courts to review the determination of the Regents. This is far from the kind of narrow exception to freedom of expression which a state may carve out to satisfy the adverse demands of other interests of society. 28 Footnote 15 For completeness' sake, later incidents should be noted. That is indeed what happened. ] Webster's Compendious Dictionary of the English Language (1806): "Sacrilege" - "the robbery of a church or chapel." 2015-2020 © Civil Liberties in the United States. Thus, the administrative first step becomes the last step. The two dissenting judges, after dealing with a matter of local law not reviewable here, found that the standard "sacrilegious" is unconstitutionally vague, and, finally, that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech applied equally to motion pictures and prevented this censorship. Laws, 1947, Education Law, 124. Application of the "sacrilegious" test, in these or other respects, might raise substantial questions under the First Amendment's guaranty of separate church and state with freedom of worship for all. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or `fighting' words - those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Footnote 47 10 707. The Larceny Act and the Malicious Injuries to Property Act, both of 1861, treated established church property substantially the same as all other property. A. C. 406. Morris L. Ernst, Osmond K. Fraenkel, Arthur Garfield Hays, Herbert Monte Levy, Emanuel Redfield, Shad Polier, Will Maslow, Leo Pfeffer, Herman Seid and Eberhard P. Deutsch filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al., as amici curiae, urging reversal. From 1768 to the eleventh edition in 1911, merely a brief dictionary-type definition was given for "sacrilege." . 283 Compare the provision, "all photographic-films imported . In November 1950, after examining the film, the motion picture division of the education department, issued a license authorizing exhibition of The Miracle, with English subtitles, as part of a trilogy called Ways of Love. 1088, 1138, 18 U.S.C.   . Footnote 2 (1915), a distributor of motion pictures sought to enjoin the enforcement of an Ohio statute which required the prior approval of a board of censors before any motion 858, 920 (1922), repealed 46 Stat. [ ] The motion picture division had previously issued a license for exhibition of "The Miracle" without English subtitles, but the film was never shown under that license. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which largely marked the decline of motion picture censorship in the United States. It is hardly necessary to comment that the limits of this definition remain too uncertain to justify constraining the creative efforts of the imagination by fear of pains and penalties imposed by a necessarily subjective censorship. . (1948): It is further urged that motion pictures possess a greater capacity for evil, particularly among the youth of a community, than other modes of expression. U.S. 296 Mr. Justice REED, concurring in the judgment of the Court. ] The latest available statistics of the Bureau of the Census give returns from 256 denominations; 57 other denominations, which did not report, are listed. 1-3: Seymour Peck, N. Y. ] Schroeder, Constitutional Free Speech (1919), 178-373, makes a lengthy review of "Prosecutions for Crimes Against Religion."   In all editions throughout 125 years, these American dictionaries have defined "sacrilege" and "sacrilegious" to echo substantially the narrow, technical definitions from the earlier British dictionaries collected in the Appendix, post, p. 533. The New York Court of Appeals' statement that the dictionary "furnishes a clear definition," justifying the vague scope it gave to "sacrilegious," surely was made without regard to the lexicographic history of the term. 315 of such a character that its exhibition would tend to corrupt morals or incite to crime.’’ Joseph Burstyn, Inc., owned the exclusive rights to distribute … ] Spaeth, "Fogged Screen," Magazine of Art, Feb., 1951, p. 44; N. Y. Herald Tribune, Jan. 30, 1951, p. 18, col. 4. 340 But we are -250 (1936); Patterson v. Colorado, In the light of the First Amendment's history and of the Near decision, the State has a heavy burden to demonstrate that the limitation challenged here presents such an exceptional case. Thomas Slater, S. J., A Manual of Moral Theology (1908), c. VI, classifies and illustrates the modern theological view of "sacrilege": Sacrilege against sacred persons: to use physical violence against a member of the clergy; to violate "the privilege of immunity of the clergy from civil jurisdiction, as far as this is still in force"; to violate a vow of chastity. The examples in the text are from Schroeder. The Miracle proved quite controversial, and hundreds of letters, telegrams, and post cards, both protesting and supporting the film persuaded the New York State Board of Regents to review the film. as a restricted ecclesiastical concept, has a long history. ] It is not mere fantasy to suggest that the effect of a ban of the "sacrilegious" may be to ban all motion pictures dealing with any subject that might be deemed religious by any sect. U.S. 233, 245 [343 Associate Justice Stanley Reed (1884-1980) who sat on the Supreme Court for the Miracle case and foresaw that the Court was setting itself up to decide case by case, and film by film, what standards were permissible in censoring decisions. Microsoft Edge. which cultural objects play so great a part, than in more highly spiritualized religions where they tend to disappear. It may fairly be said that court deemed "sacrilegious" a self-defining term, a word that carries a well-known, settled meaning in the common speech of men. . 4-5; Jan. 27, 1951, p. 11, col. 3; Feb. 6, 1951, p. 29, col. 8; Feb. 10, 1951, p. 15, col. 8; Feb. 15, 1951, p. 33, col. 2. Firefox, or Civil Liberties Union v. City of Chicago (1954) Kalman v. Cortes (2010) View Citing Opinions Get Citation Alerts Toggle Dropdown. [ Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952), the Supreme Court ruled that a New York education law allowing a film to be banned on the basis of its being sacrilegious violated the First Amendment. If "sacrilegious" bans more than the physical abuse of sacred persons, places, or things, if it permits censorship of religious opinions, which is the effect of the holding below, the term will include what may be found to be "blasphemous." The doctrine of transubstantiation, and the veneration of relics or particular stone and wood embodiments of saints or divinity, both sacred to Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson represents an important landmark in the development of First Amendment jurisprudence on expressive freedom in mass media. Times, Feb. 11, 1951, 2, p. 4, cols. Footnote 7 It leaves wide open the question as to what persons, doctrines or things are "sacred." The Court of Appeals also approved the Appellate Division's interpretation: "As the court below said of the statute in question, `All it purports to do is to bar a visual caricature of religious beliefs held sacred by one sect or another . the existence there of an established church gives more definite contours to the crime in England than the term "sacrilegious" can possibly have in this country. . (1942); Cox v. New Hampshire, U.S. 495, 527] Etymologically "sacrilege" is limited to church-robbing: sacer, sacred, and legere, to steal or pick out. It sheds no light on what representations on the motion picture screen will constitute "profaning" those things which the State censors find to be "sacred.". To allow such vague, undefinable powers of censorship to be exercised is bound to have stultifying consequences on the creative process of literature and art - for the films are derived largely from literature. U.S. 495, 528] ] "The Miracle" was passed by customs. In February 1951, the regents determined that The Miracle was ‘‘sacrilegious,’’ and on that ground ordered the rescission of Burstyn’s license to exhibit the film. Laws, 1947, Education Law, 101; see also N. Y. ] See Inglis, Freedom of the Movies (1947), 20-24; Klapper, The Effects of Mass Media (1950), passim; Note, Motion Pictures and the First Amendment, 60 Yale L. J. 35 The vast apparatus of indices and digests, which mirrors our law, affords no clue to a judicial definition of sacrilege. ] Since almost without exception "sacrilegious" is defined in terms of "sacrilege," our discussion will be directed to the latter term. 32 of Lit., Jan. 27, 1951, pp. U.S. 697 The Chancellor of the Board of Regents requested three members of the Board to view the picture and to make a report to the entire Board. 19. . VIII, c. 1, III; 1 Edw. U.S. 296, 310 310 27 . Specif. Olson, The judges agreed that movies deserved First Amendment consideration, but they weren’t ready to rule out censorship completely. . Bailey's defined it as "the stealing of Sacred Things, Church Robbing; an Alienation to Laymen, and to profane and common Purposes, of what was given to religious Persons, and to pious Uses." This statute was interpreted to apply only to buildings of the established church. . It is true that Spelman, writing "The History and Fate of Sacrilege" in 1632, included in "sacrilege" acts whereby "the very Deity is invaded, profaned, or robbed of its glory . ] McKinney's N. Y. The definitions given for "sacrilege" by two dictionaries published in 1742 and 1782 are typical. ] Catholic opinion generally, as expressed in the press, supported the view of the Legion of Decency and of Cardinal Spellman. 303 N. Y. v. Ramsay, 15 Cox's C. C. 231, 238 (1883) (Lord Coleridge's charge to the jury); Bowman v. Secular Society, Ltd., 1917. Anyone doubting the dangerous uncertainty of the New York definition, which makes "sacrilege" overlap these other "offenses against religion," need only read Blackstone's account of the broad and varying content given each of these offenses. Is a picture treating either subject, whether sympathetically, unsympathetically, or neutrally, "sacrilegious"? Footnote 17 (1949); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, [ (1931). Rev. That which was "sacred," and so was protected against "profaning," was designated in each case by ecclesiastical authority. Prohibition through words that fail to convey what is permitted and what is prohibited for want of appropriate objective standards, offends Due Process in two ways. Harris argues that the Court’s ruling in Burstyn v. Wilson was actually a bit vague. 283 motion-picture film" is a criminal offense, 35 Stat. Footnote 29 (Supp. If there is one thing that the history of religious conflicts shows, it is that the term "sacrilegious" - if by that is implied offense to the deep convictions of members of different sects, which is what the Court of Appeals seems to mean so far as it means anything precisely - does not gain "precision from the sense and experience of men.". Charles J. Tobin, Edmond B. Butler and Porter R. Chandler filed a brief for the New York State Catholic Welfare Committee, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance. ", [ ] Il Popolo, Nov. 3, 1948, p. 2, col. 9, translated by Camille M. Cianfarra, N. Y. U.S. 507 Syllabus; Opinion, Clark; Concurrence, Reed; Concurrence, Frankfurter; Syllabus . Persons are rendered sacred by ordination or consecration or by other forms of dedication to the divine service by authority of the Church (e. g., by first tonsure, by religious profession).". U.S. 147, 160 Since the repeal less than a century ago of the English law punishing "sacrilege" against the property of the Established Church, religious property has received little special protection. U.S. 568 The current printing of Funk & Wagnalls' New Standard Dictionary of the English Language, first copyrighted in 1913, carries exactly the same definition of "sacrilege" except that the first definition has been expanded to read: "The media of communication of ideas. -719 (1931); see also Lovell v. Griffin, 303 N. Y. Although oddly contradictory, these proclamations had the effect of insulating both movies and baseball from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. U.S. 495, 519], So far as the Court of Appeals sought to support its notion that "sacrilegious" has the necessary precision of meaning which the Due Process Clause enjoins for statutes regulating men's activities, it relied on this definition from Funk & Wagnalls' Dictionary: "The act of violating or profaning anything sacred." ] Howard Barnes, N. Y. Herald Tribune, Dec. 13, 1950, p. 30, cols. 38 24 & 25 Vict., c. 96, 50; c. 97, 1, 11, 39, superseded by Larceny Act, 1916, 6 & 7 Geo. It was further stated that "the protection even as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited. [343 ] N. Y. N. Y. Catholics, are offensive to a great many Protestants, and therefore for them sacrilegious in the view of the New York court. ] N. Y. The New York Appellate Division sustained revocation of a license for the showing of a motion picture under 122 of the New York Education Law on the ground that it was "sacrilegious." as part of the press of the country or as organs of public opinion.’’ Almost contemporaneously, the Court reasoned in the 1922 case of Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League that ‘‘exhibitions of base ball . Footnote 41 ] The action was brought under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Act, Gilbert-Bliss N. Y. Civ. The Appellate Division rejected all of appellant's contentions and upheld the Regents' determination. 1 278 App. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, Of the nature of sacrilege; as, sacrilegious deeds. vastly compassionate comprehension of the suffering and the triumph of birth.". 310 . same dictionaries defined "blasphemy," a peculiarly verbal offense, in much broader terms than "sacrilege," indeed in terms which the New York court finds encompassed by "sacrilegious." 28 U.S.C. -370 (1931). Decided June 2, 1952. are purely state affairs’’ and that transportation facilitating games ‘‘between clubs from different cities’’ is ‘‘a mere incident’’ to interstate commerce. Secondly, where licensing is rested, in the first instance, in an administrative agency, the available judicial review is in effect rendered inoperative. . [ No. King James I's "Book of Sports" was first required reading in the churches; later all copies were consigned to the flames. Laura Wittern-Keller and Raymond Haberski show how the Supreme Court's unanimous 1952 ruling in Burstyn's favor sparked a chain of litigation that eventually brought filmmaking under the protective umbrella of the First Amendment, overturning its long-outdated decision in Mutual v. Ohio (1915). W. J. Beeners of Princeton, New Jersey, R. 98, respectively. [ [ But his main theme was the "spoil of church lands done by Henry VIII" and the misfortunes that subsequently befell the families of the recipients of former ecclesiastical property as divine punishment. behavior.’’ Burstyn continues to influence contemporary First Amendment jurisprudence. 40 ] Time, Feb. 19, 1951, pp. Note, Charles A. Brind, Jr. and Wendell P. Brown, Solicitor General of New York, argued the cause for appellees. Footnote 50 U.S. 230 MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court. 1-8, in an article bearing the headline: "Film Critic Gives Some Aspects of `The Miracle' Story: Raises Questions Concerning Tactics of Organized Catholic Resistance Groups in New York." Footnote 34 Much the same view was taken by Frank Getlein writing in The Catholic Messenger, Mar. Footnote 12 42 ", [ Footnote 6 Anna Magnani again demonstrates her magnificent qualities of acting. 6B, 1944, 1949 Supp., 1283 et seq. If the New York Court of Appeals had given "sacrilegious" the meaning it has had in Catholic thought since St. Thomas Aquinas formulated its scope, and had sustained a finding by the Board of Regents that "The Miracle" came within that scope, this Court would have to meet some of the broader questions regarding the relation to the motion picture industry of the guarantees of the First Amendment so far as reflected in the Fourteenth. [ U.S. 495, 529] [343 Webster's New International Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam Co., 1st ed., 1909): "Sacrilege" - "The sin or crime of violating or profaning sacred things; specif., the alienating to laymen, or to common purposes, what has been appropriated or consecrated to religious persons or uses." 318 Times, Jan. 21, 1951, p. 53, cols. U.S. 495, 518] [ 242, 264, 101 N. E. 2d 665, 675. Footnote 11 Times, Dec. 13, 1950, p. 50, cols. U.S. 315 Prezi’s Big Ideas 2021: Expert advice for the new year New York cannot vest such unlimited restraining control over motion pictures in a censor. Near v. Minnesota ex rel. This principle is especially to be observed when what is so vague seeks to fetter the mind and put within unascertainable bounds the varieties of religious experience. U.S. 290 U.S. 495, 507] ." "Pressure forced deletion of the clerical background of Cardinal Richelieu from The Three Musketeers. The role is difficult . Footnote 21 2178, 477-478, thus defines sacrilege: "Sacrilege consists in the unworthy use or treatment of sacred things and sacred persons. , Mr. Justice Roberts, speaking for the whole Court, said: "In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. IndustrialCommission,236U.S.230(1915), Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948). (1945). 333 ] Compare the definitions of "sacrilege" and "blasphemy" in the dictionaries, starting with Cockeram's 1651 edition, which are collected in the Appendix, post, p. 533. ] After his method of raising objections and then refuting them, St. Thomas Aquinas defends including within the proscription of "sacrilege," anyone "who disagree[s] about the sovereign's decision, and doubt[s] whether the person chosen by the sovereign be worthy of honor" and "any man [who] shall allow the Jews to hold public offices."   [ 1257 (2). However, from the standpoint of freedom of speech and the press, it is enough to point out that the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints upon the expression of those views. U.S. 569 "In primitive religions [sacrilege is] inclusive of almost every serious offence even in fields now regarded as merely social or political . . Arguments by the parties and in briefs amici invite us to pursue to their farthest reach the problems in which this case is involved. See also, "Miracles Do Happen," The New Leader, Feb. 5, 1951, p. 30, col. 2. U.S. 495, 503] Footnote 19 U.S. 697, 716 [ (1940); Stromberg v. California, 47 "Motion Pictures and the First Amendment," 60 Yale L. J. . However, it shows what an artist of Rossellini's character can do in the still scarcely explored medium of the film short story.". (1931); Grosjean v. American Press Co., U.S. 495, 526]. 93-94, col. 3: "strong medicine for most American audiences. The industry's self-censorship has already had a distorting influence on the portrayal of historical figures. . Sacrilege against sacred places: to violate the immunity of churches and other sacred places "as far as this is still in force"; to commit a crime such as homicide, suicide, bloody attack there; to break by sexual act a vow of chastity there; to bury an infidel, heretic, or excommunicate in churches or cemeteries canonically established; or to put the sacred place to a profane use, as a secular courtroom, public market, banquet hall, stable, etc.