Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Keating v. Motion Picture Film Entitled "Vixen"

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 21, 1971No. 70-554PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Per curiam

Although the production, exhibition and distribution of motion pictures is a large-scale business conducted for private profit, the fact that motion pictures are a medium for the expression of ideas accords them the safeguard of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents of University of the State of New York (1959), 360 U. S. 684, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1512, 79 S. Ct. 1362. The United States Constitution, however, does not ordain absolute freedom for anyone to exhibit any motion picture of any kind at any time or place. Dennis v. United States (1951), 341 U.…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  3. Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington)Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
  4. Freedman v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  5. Murdock v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1943

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. People Ex Rel. Busch v. Projection Room TheaterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  3. State ex rel. Ewing v. A Motion Picture Film Entitled "Without A Stitch"Ohio Supreme Court · 1974
  4. General Corp. v. State Ex Rel. SweetonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1975
  5. State ex rel. Sensenbrenner v. Adult Book StoreOhio Supreme Court · 1973

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API