Join NCAC Now

» art» media» literature» science» internet» education» entertainment

EXPRESS YOURSELF!

 in support of free expression



NCAC File Room


The information presented here by the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) may be freely redistributed in its entirety, provided that readers are informed that the information was obtained from NCAC's World Wide Web site and that credit is given to the appropriate source of whatever information is used. Permission is expressly granted for the information obtained to be made available for file transfer from installations offering unrestricted anonymous file transfer on the Internet. Information found here may not be sold for profit or incorporated in commercial documents without the written permission from the National Coalition Against Censorship.

©Copyright 2005 NCAC
WEB DESIGN
Jeanne Criscola Criscola Design

free speech first amendment censorship

  
CASE NAME: Wildmon v. Berwick Universal Pictures
CITATION: 803 F.Supp. 1167 (N.D. Miss. 1992)
Topics: Copyright; Contracts; Films
In 1990 a British film producer interviewed Donald Wildmon, a religious leader and arts funding opponent, about his involvement in the censorship of artwork in the United States. Wildmon objected to the use of his interview in the final documentary product, as it was interspersed with the very images he found morally offensive.

In this suit Wildmon attempted stop the distribution of the documentary in the U.S. on the basis of his contract with the film company. The Court found the contract itself to be ambiguous, so looked to pre- and post-contract conduct to discern the parties’ intentions. The Court concluded the most reasonable interpretation of the whole agreement was that that Wildmon had control only over the interview, and did not have control over the distribution of the entire film. The Court suggested Wildmon knew or should have known that the film could contain graphic images. The Court tried not to consider public policy and First Amendment arguments, restricting the case primarily to contract law.

Significance:
This case is significant for the Court’s unwillingness to look beyond the contract when both sides made arguments based on the First Amendment and public policy.
These materials are not intended, and should not be used, as legal advice. They necessarily contain generalizations that are not applicable in all jurisdictions or circumstances. Moreover, court decisions may be superceded by subsequent rulings, and may be subject to alternative interpretations. Corrections, clarification, and additions are welcome. Please send to ncac@ncac.org.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Action Alerts

» National

» Eastern

» Central

» Mountain

» Pacific


» email alert sign-up


» report censorship!

 

275 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001 » Phone (212) 807-6222 Fax (212) 807-6245 » ncac@ncac.org