Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Supreme Court — Part 29
Page 39
39 / 83
'Pa—-Censor_ Case
| Refused Review
By Supreme Court
WASHINGTON. The U. S. Supreme Court
has refused to review i
Pratt a ten aern
tha aA € #hn
Ge GIRLIE WPL RL
. aod federal constitutions by the Court of —
Common Pleas, a decision upheld by the
State Supreme Court. The state asked the :
U.S. high court to review the decision, argu-
ing that other courts in other districts would
be influenced by the reasoning of the state
high court.
a er ea re |
. But, motion picture people argued that
i the Pennsylvania courts had declared the
. ct invalid under the laws of Pennsylvani
d that it was not necessary, therefore, t
nsider federal questions. The Suprem
ourt, in refusing to review the decisio
{ Zave no reasons, as ig usual in such cas
; The effect is to permit decisions to stand
without providing legal precedents such as |
actual Supreme Court decisions do.
The voided act sought to set up a three-
‘ tan board which would have had the power
to ban films outright or to prescribe them
for showing only to patrons 17 or older.
Films being shown in Pennsylvania for the
first time would have had to have been
submitted 48 hours before showing. Exhibi-
tors would have beaa required to register
with a fee.
The Dauphin County court found the act
unconstitutional in that it restricted freedom
of expression and communication and es-
tablished prior restraint. It said standatds
were vague and indefinite, procedural and
judicial safeguards were jacking and films
were singled cut from among other media.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed
with all this and found the registration fee
to be a “tax upon free speech.”
The court’s refusal to review the law was
looked upon by the Catholic Standard.& '
Peres—Ee bringing an end to the “public
a
Pennsylvania Supreme Court which voided ©
the stategA¢hew cengorship-classification law.
Thg#ennsylvania Motion Picture Control; -
| ActAvas held to be void both under state+
: “hollow” victory and called the people of’
ee oe
ORO
; . oo er Bir. Suiijivan.
demand that there be controls of sqmc hind : t Mr. Tavel
emcmrovies in Pennsylyania.” The chal | Mr. Trotter.
organ of the Catholic diocese in Philadel-
phia, in an editoral, called the decision a,
Pennsylvania “ihe losers.” The editorial .
stated that the law was knocked down “not. . |.
before the strong demands of constitutional! ,
law, but rather before the strong and un-
Yeasaning demands that censorship of every
bye
}
! A fo|\
* «
New York, “ew York
You. 18, 1961
Page S$
-
NOT RECORDED
149 NOV 30 1961
emg a
Tele. Room
Mr. Ingram__...
Miss Gandy—__
*
at
Independent Fila Journal
g? GAgBeeoh
Reveal the original PDF page, then click a word to highlight the OCR text.
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
letter
bureau
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic