Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan
| Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan | |
|---|---|
| Argued December 4, 1962 Decided February 18, 1963 | |
| Full case name | Bantam Books, Inc., et al. v. Joseph A. Sullivan et al. As Members of the Rhode Island Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth. |
| Citations | 372 U.S. 58 (more) 83 S. Ct. 631; 9 L. Ed. 2d 584; 1963 U.S. LEXIS 1552 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 93 R.I. 411, 176 A.2d 393 (1961) |
| Holding | |
| The activities of the Rhode Island Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth in issuing notices and lists of objectionable publications to book distributors, and requesting their cooperation in preventing the sale of such publications, constitutes a system of informal censorship, and thus violates the First Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Clark, Stewart, White, Goldberg |
| Dissent | Harlan |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. I | |
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that the actions of the Rhode Island Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth, which involved pressuring distributors to stop selling certain publications, violated the First Amendment by creating an unconstitutional system of informal censorship. The Court ruled that the commission's practice of issuing notices and lists of objectionable publications to book distributors, and requesting their cooperation in preventing the sale of such publications, was unconstitutional. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. delivered the majority opinion, emphasizing that government entities cannot use indirect methods to suppress constitutionally protected speech and that states must create procedural safeguards to protect non-obscene materials from being censored subjectively. Justice John Marshall Harlan II dissented, arguing that the majorities decision failed to justify ruling against the commission's actions which he viewed only as an attempt to deal with a societal problem rather than a suppression of free speech.