CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson

1952 United States Supreme Court case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJun 7, 2026
Entity authorityQ6281824 ↗
Source-derived summary

Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952), also referred to as the Miracle Decision, is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that largely marked the decline of motion picture censorship in the United States. It determined that provisions of the New York Education Law that had allowed a censor to forbid the commercial showing of a motion picture film that the censor deemed "sacrilegious" were a "restraint on freedom of speech" and thereby a violation of the First Amendment.

In recognizing that film was an artistic medium entitled to protection under the First Amendment, the Court overturned its previous decision in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, which found that movies were not a form of speech worthy of First Amendment protection, but merely a business.

Background

The case was an appeal to the Supreme Court by film distributor Joseph Burstyn after the state of New York rescinded the license to exhibit the short film "The Miracle," originally made as a segment of the Italian film L'Amore. Burstyn was the distributor of the subtitled English versions of the film in the U.S.

The film was directed by Italian neorealist Roberto Rossellini. Its plot centered on a man, "Saint Joseph" (played by director Federico Fellini), who villainously impregnates "Nanni" (Anna Magnani), a disturbed peasant who believes herself to be the Virgin Mary. Fellini and Rossellini also co-wrote the script for "The Miracle."

"The Miracle" originally premiered in Europe in 1948 as the anthology film L'Amore with two segments, "Il Miracolo" and "La voce umana," the latter based on Jean Cocteau's play The Human Voice and also starring Magnani.

Editorial summary

“Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson” enters the record as 1952 United States Supreme Court case. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Joseph, Burstyn and Wilson can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1952, 1948—that can be checked directly. The linked authority record independently contributes the date 1952-05-26. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Joseph, Burstyn and Wilson.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Joseph, Burstyn and Wilson provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 7, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q6281824. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1952 and 1948.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson primary sources, Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson archive and Joseph research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.