Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Freedman Vs. Maryland

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 01, 1965

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

40 entries 7 linked 33 unlinked
Show
  1. Bantam Books, Inc. Vs. Sullivan US Supreme Court · Dec 03, 1962
    Relied / Followed
  2. Thomas Vs. Collins US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1945
  3. Naacp Vs. Button US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1963
  4. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. Vs. Wilson US Supreme Court · May 26, 1952
  5. Manual Enterprises, Inc. Vs. Day US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1962
  6. Speiser Vs. Randall US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1958
  7. Kingsley Books, Inc. Vs. Brown US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1957
    Relied / Followed
  8. U.S. 51 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court Freedman v. Maryland
    Search
  9. U.S. 51 (1965) Freedman v. Maryland
    Search
  10. a requirement of prior submission to a censorship board is not necessarily unconstitutional. Times Film Corp. v. City
    Search
  11. There is a heavy presumption against the constitutional validity of prior restraints of expression. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan
    Search
  12. Md. 498, 197 A.2d 232, and we noted probable jurisdiction, 377 U.S. 987. We reverse. I In Times Film Corp. v. City
    Search
  13. citing a number of our decisions, the Court quoted the statement from Near v. State
    Search
  14. has taken four months, and final vindication of the film on appellate review six months. United Artists Corp. v. Maryland
    Search
  15. Thornhill v. State
    Search
  16. Staub v. City
    Search
  17. Saia v. New
    Search
  18. Hague v. CIO
    Search
  19. Lovell v. City
    Search
  20. Marcus v. Search
    Search
  21. First, the burden of proving that the film is unprotected expression must rest on the censor. As we said in Speiser v. Randall
    Search
  22. only a procedure requiring a judicial determination suffices to impose a valid final restraint. See Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan
    Search
  23. A Quantity of Books v. State
    Search
  24. censor's view that the film is unprotected, may have a discouraging effect on the exhibitor. See Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan
    Search
  25. In Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown
    Search
  26. that the Maryland Court of Appeals has reversed the Board's disapproval in every reported case. United Artists Corp. v. Maryland
    Search
  27. Maryland State Board of Censors v. Times
    Search
  28. Fanfare Films, Inc. v. Motion
    Search
  29. to the same degree and kind of protection under the First Amendment as other forms of expression. Superior Films v. Department
    Search
  30. Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents
    Search
  31. Times Film Corp. v. City
    Search
  32. banned from the theatre. I would not admit the censor even for the limited role accorded him in Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown
    Search
  33. obscenity must be assured. Thus, the Chicago censorship system, upheld by the narrowest of margins in Times Film Corp. v. City
    Search
  34. U.S. Supreme Court Freedman v. Maryland
    Search
  35. I In Times Film Corp. v. City
    Search
  36. Near v. State
    Search
  37. United Artists Corp. v. Maryland
    Search
  38. Staub v. City
    Search
  39. See Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan
    Search
  40. Superior Films v. Department
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial