How To Fight An Unlawful Traffic Ticket
The American Constitution
Freedman v. Maryland
In Freedman v. Maryland, the Court tackled movie censorship in the form of a licensing scheme. Specifically, Maryland law required prior approval of films by a censorship board before they could be shown in the state.
The Court determined the licensing scheme was an unconstitutional prior restraint because there was no recourse available to film exhibitors and distributors other than litigation. The law lacked an opportunity for timely and impartial review of censorship determinations. As a result, it didn’t adequately protect against improper restrictions on protected expression.
The Court held the licensing scheme impermissibly infringed upon the First Amendment rights of the film professionals. It further established a three-pronged procedural standard for prior restraints to ensure adequate safeguards:
The government entity seeking to impose the prior restraint on speech must bear the burden of proof in court.
The prior restraint may only be imposed for a “specified brief period.” The status quo must be maintained for this period.
Prompt judicial review of restraint decisions must be available.
Licensing schemes must satisfy this standard to avoid being considered invalid prior restraints. This constitutional standard has been utilized in several subsequent cases to evaluate the validity of prior restraint licensing schemes.
Comments
Post a Comment