In the case of Mutual Film Company v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 1914, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that motion pictures were a form of business and not an avenue for free speech or expression protected by the First Amendment. The Mutual Film Corporation had challenged an Ohio law requiring all films to be screened and approved by a state board before they could be shown publicly. They argued this was a violation of their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and press. However, the court disagreed stating that movies were more like businesses which could potentially have harmful effects on society rather than being mediums for ideas or opinions deserving protection under these freedoms. This decision marked one significant point in American legal history where film censorship was upheld at its highest level until it was overturned later in 1952 with Joseph Burstyn Inc v Wilson ruling.

In the dissenting opinion for Mutual Film Company v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that motion pictures should be protected under the First Amendment as a form of free speech and expression. He disagreed with the majority's view that films were purely a business and thus not entitled to constitutional protection. Holmes believed this interpretation was too narrow, asserting that just because films are made for profit does not mean they lack expressive value or social impact deserving of First Amendment safeguards. Furthermore, he contended that censorship based on moral standards was subjective and could lead to arbitrary decisions about what content is acceptable or unacceptable.