DOUGLAS, J., concurring. 346 U.S. et al.; and by Morris L. Ernst for the National Council on Freedom from Censorship, a Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union. PER CURIAM. The judgments are reversed. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK agrees, concurring. The argument of Ohio and New York that the government may establish censorship over moving pictures is one I cannot accept. In 1925 Minnesota passed a law aimed at suppressing before publication any "malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper." The Court, speaking through Chief Justice Hughes, struck down that law as violating the Fourteenth Amendment, which has made the First Amendment applicable to the States. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697. The "chief purpose" of the constitutional guaranty of liberty of the press, said the Court, was "to prevent previous restraints upon publication." Id., p. 713. The history of censorship is so well known it need not be summarized here. Certainly a system, still in force in some nations, which required a newspaper to submit to a board its news items, editorials, and cartoons before it published them could not be sustained. Nor could book publishers be required to submit their novels, poems, and tracts to censors for clearance before publication. Any such scheme of censorship would be in irreconcilable conflict with the language and purpose of the First Amendment. Nor is it conceivable to me that producers of plays for the legitimate theatre or for television could be required to submit their manuscripts to censors on pain of penalty for producing them without approval. Certainly the 587 DOUGLAS, J., concurring. spoken word is as freely protected against prior restraints as that which is written. Such indeed is the force of our decision in Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 540. The freedom of the platform which it espouses carries with it freedom of the stage. The same result in the case of motion pictures necessarily follows as a consequence of our holding in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495, 502, that motion pictures are "within the free speech and free press guaranty of the First and Fourteenth Amendments." Motion pictures are of course a different medium of expression than the public speech, the radio, the stage, the novel, or the magazine. But the First Amendment draws no distinction between the various methods of communicating ideas. On occasion one may be more powerful or effective than another. The movie, like the public speech, radio, or television, is transitory-here now and gone in an instant. The novel, the short story, the poem in printed form are permanently at hand to reenact the drama or to retell the story over and again. Which medium will give the most excitement and have the most enduring effect will vary with the theme and the actors. It is not for the censor to determine in any case. The First and the Fourteenth Amendments say that Congress and the States shall make "no law" which abridges freedom of speech or of the press. In order to sanction a system of censorship I would have to say that "no law" does not mean what it says, that "no law" is qualified to mean "some" laws. I cannot take that step. In this Nation every writer, actor, or producer, no matter what medium of expression he may use, should be freed from the censor. REPORTER'S NOTE. The next page is purposely numbered 801. The numbers between 589 and 801 were purposely omitted, in order to make it possible to publish the per curiam decisions and orders in the current advance sheets or "preliminary prints" of the United States Reports with permanent page numbers, thus making the official citations available immediately. DECISIONS PER CURIAM AND ORDERS FROM BEGINNING OF OCTOBER TERM, 1953, THROUGH JANUARY 18, 1954.* CASE DISMISSED IN VACATION. No. 147. SAWYER V. WISCONSIN. On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. August 28, 1953. Dismissed per stipulation pursuant to Rule 35 of the Rules of this Court. Alfons B. Landa, Arthur D. Condon, Warren E. Magee and Delmar W. Holloman for petitioner. William J. McCauley for respondent. Reported below: 263 Wis. 218, 56 N. W. 2d 811. OCTOBER 5, 1953. Miscellaneous Order. No. 121. WALDER V. UNITED STATES. Certiorari, 345 U. S. 992, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It is ordered that Paul A. Porter, of Washington, D. C., a member of the Bar of this Court, be appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case. OCTOBER 12, 1953. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN made the following statement: "THE CHIEF JUSTICE having taken office on the day the matters to be reported on today were considered by the Court in conference, and having no familiarity with the records, did not participate in consideration of them. "MR. JUSTICE BLACK will speak for the Court." *For decisions per curiam and orders announced on June 8 and 15, 1953, see 345 U. S. 971 et seq. October 12, 1953. 346 U.S. Per Curiam Decisions. No. 49. UNITED STATES v. CARROLL CONSTRUCTION CO. ET AL. On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington. Per Curiam: The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for consideration in the light of United States v. Gilbert Associates, 345 U. S. 361. MR. JUSTICE REED and MR. JUSTICE JACKSON dissent. They are of the opinion that United States v. Gilbert Associates is not pertinent. Acting Solicitor General Stern for the United States. Reported below: 41 Wash. 2d 317, 249 P.2d 234. No. 71. ARENDER ET AL. v. KINGWOOD OIL CO. ET AL. Appeal from the Supreme Court of Louisiana. Per Curiam: The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Clyde R. Brown for appellants. Geo. Gunby for appellees. Reported below: 222 La. 383, 62 So. 2d 615. No. 151. SIMPSON ET AL. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL. Appeal from the Supreme Court of California. Per Curiam: The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Morris Lavine for appellants. Roger Arnebergh, William H. Neal, Bourke Jones and Alan G. Campbell for appellees. Reported below: 40 Cal. 2d 271, 253 P. 2d 464. No. 123. KALMANE V. GREEN, EXECUTOR. Appeal from the Court of Appeals of New York. Per Curiam: The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Martin Popper for appellant. Reported below: 305 N. Y. 148, 691, 111 N. E. 2d 424, 112 N. E. 2d 774. No. 238. MCGEE v. NORTH CAROLINA. Appeal from the Supreme Court of North Carolina. Per Curiam: The |