In the 1914 case Mutual Film Corporation of Missouri v. Hodges, Governor of the State of Kansas, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that motion pictures were not protected by the First Amendment's guarantee to freedom of speech and expression. The Mutual Film Corporation had challenged a Kansas law requiring all films shown in state theaters to be approved by a board before they could be exhibited publicly. The corporation argued this was an infringement on their right to free speech. However, Justice Joseph Rucker Lamar delivered the unanimous opinion stating that movies were more business than art or literature and therefore did not qualify for constitutional protection under free speech laws. This decision allowed states and municipalities across America to continue censoring films until it was overturned in 1952 with Joseph Burstyn Inc v Wilson.

In the case of Mutual Film Corporation v. Hodges, Justice Holmes dissented from the majority opinion that motion pictures were not protected by the First Amendment as a form of speech or press. He argued that films should be considered part of the press and thus entitled to constitutional protection against censorship. Holmes believed it was inappropriate for courts to decide what forms of media deserved free speech protections based on their perceived value or harm to society. Instead, he contended that all forms of expression should be presumed to have First Amendment protections unless there is clear evidence they pose a serious danger. His dissenting view emphasized his belief in broad interpretation and application of free speech rights under the Constitution.