Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents 360 U.S. 684 (1959)
KINGSLEY INTERNATIONAL PICTURES CORP. v. REGENTS 360 U.S. 684 (1959)
inKingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents the state of New York had refused to issue a license for the motion picture Lady Chatterley's Lover because it "alluringly portrays adultery as proper behavior." There was no claim that the film constituted an incitement to unlawful conduct. Without deciding whether all licensing schemes for motion pictures were unconstitutional the Supreme Court held that the refusal to grant this license violated the first amendment. The Court reaffirmed that motion pictures were within the scope of the First Amendment and proclaimed that the amendment's "basic guarantee" is "the freedom to advocate ideas," including the idea that adultery may in some cases be justified.
Steven Shiffrin
(1986)
More From encyclopedia.com
picture , pic·ture / ˈpikchər/ • n. a painting or drawing: draw a picture of a tree. ∎ a photograph: we were warned not to take pictures. ∎ a portrait: have he… Motion Pictures , Motion pictures, also called film, cinema or movies, are a series of images, recorded on strips of film, that create the illusion of continuous motio… Romer V. Evans , Romer v. Evans
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1996), is a landmark and controversial decision, in which the U.S. S… Amendment , a·mend / əˈmend/ • v. [tr.] make minor changes in (a text) in order to make it fairer, more accurate, or more up-to-date: the rule was amended to app… Brief for the Petitioners , Brief for the Petitioners
In the Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1963
No. 39
THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, PETITIONER,
V.
L. B. SULLIV… Barron V. Baltimore , Barron v. Baltimore
In Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (U.S. 1833), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the fifth amendm…
About this article
Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents 360 U.S. 684 (1959)
You Might Also Like
NEARBY TERMS
Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents 360 U.S. 684 (1959)