"sacrilegious, obscene, indecent, or immoral, or such as tend . . . to debase or corrupt morals"
How later courts described this case
- "sacrilegious, obscene, indecent, or immoral, or such as tend . . . to debase or corrupt morals"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell:
I would like to sustain the validity of Pennsylvania’s Motion Picture Censorship Act of May 15, 1915, which prohibits the showing of motion pictures which are “obscene, indecent, immoral or sacrilegious,” and which has protécted the interests of the highly moral and deeply religious people of Pennsylvania for over 40 years. I believe such an Act to be wise, necessary and valid. However, the Supíneme Court of the United States held in Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 that a censorship act which prohibits the showing of motion pictures which are “sacrilegious”, establishes too vague *359 and indefinite a standard and consequently violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. Other decisions of that Court hold that similar statutes which prohibit pictures which are “obscene, indecent or immoral” lay down a standard which is too vague and indefinite and are therefore unconstitutional. * I believe the effect of these decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States is to invalidate motion picture censorship by State tribunals. Because of those decisions, I must reluctantly agree with the majority opinion.
If that standard is too vague and indefinite before the motion picture is shown, it is difficult to understand how a Court can, after an exhibition, bar a picture or punish its participants on the ground that it is obscene, indecent, immoral or sacrilegious and hence a violation of Sections 527, 528 et seq. of The Penal Code of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872.