In the 1914 case of Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that motion pictures were a form of business, not an art or medium for communication and thus did not qualify for First Amendment protections. The court upheld an Ohio law requiring state censorship of movies as constitutional because it viewed films primarily as a business with potential to harm public morals rather than a medium capable of expressing ideas deserving protection under freedom-of-speech principles. This decision effectively allowed states to continue censoring films until this ruling was overturned in 1952 by Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson which recognized film as a significant medium for the communication of ideas.

In the dissenting opinion for Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that motion pictures should be protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and expression. He disagreed with the majority's view that films were purely a business and thus could be regulated without violating constitutional rights. Instead, he contended that movies are a form of art and communication which can influence public opinion just like newspapers or books, therefore deserving protection from censorship laws. Furthermore, he expressed concern about giving government bodies too much power to decide what content is acceptable for public consumption as it might lead to arbitrary decisions based on personal biases rather than objective standards.