The Freedman Guidelines - The Freedman case was the culmination of a long line of test cases relating to the question of whether a state or municipality could require pre-exhibition review of films for obscenity without violating the Freedom of Speech and Press guarantees. Freedman requires that certain procedures be followed. These are: (1) The burden of proof of obscenity rests with the state. (2) The exhibitor must be assured by statute or judicial construction that the administrative body will, within a specified brief period, either issue a license or go to court to restrain the showing of the film. (3) Any restraint imposed in advance of judicial determination must be limited to preservation of the status quo for the shortest fixed period compatible with sound judicial resolution. (4) A prompt final judicial decision is required Star v. Preller, 352 F.Supp. 530 (D.Md. 1972) aff'd, 375 F.Supp. 1093 (D.Md. 1974), aff'd, 419 U.S. 956 (1974), but no further prompt appellate review is required under Freedman.

The Maryland Film Review Board Statute has been Specifically Upheld as Constitutional - After the 1965 decision in Freedman v. Maryland, the State of Maryland revised its statute to conform thereto. The test of that revised statute came in the case of Star v. Preller supra in 1972 and in 1974. In affirming the 1974, case the United States Supreme Court gave its blessing to the Maryland statute as a model for the states to follow.

The Only Valid Criteria for Denial of License is Obscenity - The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the only valid criteria for denial of licensing is obscenity. Words in a statute such as "indecent" or "immoral" or "obscene when viewed by children" must be equated with obscene. The Miller standards delineate the outer limits of the term.

Governmental Justification - The philosophical underpinning of permitting pre-exhibition licensing of motion pictures and prohibiting the same requirement for books and magazines rests on distinctions in the nature of the medium and the methods of dissemination. The Supreme Court has said that the states are not stripped of constitutional power to prevent "in the most effective fashion" the utterance of obscenity via motion picture films. Motion pictures are not necessarily subject to the precise rules governing other particular methods of expression since they have a short life span which will have ended long before a trial and conviction under a subsequent punishment statute. Therefore, prior reviews are the only feasible method of restricting unlawful motion pictures if the object of an obscenity statute, to protect morals and tranquillity, are to be obtained.

Overbreadth and Vagueness - Until the Supreme Court spelled out its requirements in Freedman, it had contented itself with striking down those statutory attempts it considered vague. Other courts had struck down or sustained statutes challenged for overbreadth.

Statutory Exemptions from Pre-Review have Usually been Upheld - Exemptions from film review for newsreels, religious associations, libraries, museums and schools are reasonable. It has also been held that projectionists may be excluded and is permissible to set up a review board to prohibit exhibition of films to children.

Miscellaneous Issues - Where the appointing power determines the fitness of the members of a film review board, the courts may not second guess his or her determination. The establishment of a film review board is not an unlawful delegation of legislative authority. There is no requirement of a jury trial.