# data[].attributes.body
Cinema was finally legally acknowledged as a form of expression protected by the 1st & 14th Amendments in 343 U.S. 495 (1952), wherein the license revocation of Rossellini's (religiously 'problematic') "The Miracle" was overturned by the NYC Court of Appeals. Viva free speech!

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep343/usrep343495/usrep343495.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
280 words: Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952): The First Amendment protects motion pictures as a form of expression (US, NY)

# data[].attributes.subject
280 words: Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952): The First Amendment protects motion pictures as a form of expression (US, NY)

# data[].attributes.body
Movie censorship is becoming less stringent!

Remember the ridiculous case that served as a precedent for film censorship ever since 1915 (Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio)? It has been overturned, and it is finally recognized that cinema is under the protection of free speech, after all!

So, what happened? The neorealist genius Rossellini recently directed a short called “The Miracle.” It’s about a girl who thinks that she’s the Virgin Mary; tragically, she is assaulted by a stranger and gives birth to a child whom she thinks to be Christ. The short is brilliant! The New York Film Critics Circle awarded it the best foreign language film last December, and not for nothing.

But religious fanatics were not impressed. They claimed that it is blasphemous and all that. They even protested outside the theaters that screened “The Miracle”! By and by, the New York State Board of Regents examined the film and called for the Commissioner of Education, Mr. Wilson, to revoke its license. Talk about blasphemy!

The New York Court of Appeals was called to review the decision by the distributor, Mr. Burstyn, because it obviously violates the Constitution: this kind of prohibition goes against both freedom of speech and the separation of church and state! And what does “sacrilegious” mean, anyway? And then Justice Clark, our hero, ruled that the 1915 precedent is no longer relevant for modern cinema, said that films must have the protection of the First and the Fourteenth Amendments, and even concluded that the permission of the government should not be a requirement to show films.

Viva "The Miracle," viva Justice Clark, and viva the First Amendment!

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep343/usrep343495/usrep343495.pdf

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/burstyn-v-wilson/

# data[].attributes.headline
Reno v. ACLU: reconciling the First Amendment and the Internet

# data[].attributes.subject
Reno v. ACLU: reconciling the First Amendment and the Internet

# data[].attributes.headline
AI Usage Statement for the Canva Assignment

# data[].attributes.subject
AI Usage Statement for the Canva Assignment

# data[].attributes.body
No AI has been used in the research, writing, nor any other part of the assignment due to my personal ethical convictions.

# data[].attributes.headline
AI Usage Statement for the Tweet Assignment

# data[].attributes.subject
AI Usage Statement for the Tweet Assignment

# data[].attributes.body
No AI has been used in the research, writing, nor any other part of the assignment due to my personal ethical convictions.