# Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents of the University

> New York Court of Appeals · May 15, 1958 · 4 N.Y.2d 349

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5517009

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Kingsley International Pictures Corporation, against Regents of the University of the State of New York
- **Court:** New York Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** May 15, 1958
- **Citations:** 4 N.Y.2d 349; 175 N.Y.S.2d 39; 151 N.E.2d 197; 1958 N.Y. LEXIS 994
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Voorhis
- **Judges:** Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Voorhis
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5517009

## Opinion text

Van Voorhis, J.
(dissenting). I agree with the Appellate Division and with my dissenting brethren that section 122-a of the Education Law is unconstitutional, in which event this problem play cannot be suppressed as “immoral”. On the other hand, it would have been within the jurisdiction of the Regents (it seems to me) to have eliminated several passages in this picture as “ obscene ” under section 122. The Motion Picture Division of the Education Department attempted some *375 thing of that sort in recommending that certain scenes he expurgated, but on the ground that they are “immoral”. Although that ground is not available, and it is impossible to write off this entire drama as “mere pornography” (Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 ), certain passages might have been eliminated as “obscene” without doing violence to constitutional liberties. In their endeavor to censor morality, both the Motion Picture Division and the Regents seem to have overlooked their power to exclude “ obscenity ”, which includes the portrayal on the public screen of sexual intimacies whether they be marital or extramarital. Thus, while concurring with the dissenting Judges to affirm the unconstitutionality of section 122-a, I would remit the matter to the Board of Regents to consider the aspect which I have mentioned before ordering them to issue a license for the exhibition of this picture without any expurgations.
Judges Froessel and Burke concur with Chief Judge Conway ; Judge Desmond concurs in result in a separate opinion; Judges Dye and Fuld dissent and vote to affirm, each in a separate opinion in which the other concurs and in both of which dissenting opinions Judge Van Voorhis concurs in part in a separate dissenting opinion for remission of the matter to the Board of Regents.
Order reversed, etc.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5517009. Public record. Not legal advice.