What is this jury case saying??

Question

it on http://www.anarchytv.com/speech/burstyn.htm that webiste.... explain the issue of this case and what the results are.

Answer 1

Wilson Revoked a license to public performance of a film, previously granted to Burstyn.

(looks like, Wilson owned the theater, burstyn licensed the right to show films there)

Burstyn argued it was a violation of the first ammendment.

Wilson argued it was not applicable because the film was "sacrilegious."

The court held that the first ammendment applied to film just as it applied to the spoken or printed word or drawn picture, even tho it has more impact on a viewer.

It also said that being "sacrilegious" was not a disqualifier to the first ammendment.

If I read it right, the decision was also overturned, meaning Burstyn was still not allowed to show it publicly.

--Edit

Easy answer - I was pretty far off mark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burs...

ROFL, what is there left that isn't in a wiki?

Answer 2

It's all summed up in the last sentence.  Basically it's saying New York's Education Law can't restrict a film from being shown to students on the basis the film might be thought of as sacrilegious since it's not the state's responsibility to protect religions from anyone's view of that religion which might hold it (the religion) in a distasteful viewpoint.  

Essentially it upholds freedom of speech and reminds the state about the separation between church and state.