In the case of Superior Films, Inc. v. Department of Education of Ohio, Division of Film Censorship, Hissong Superintendent (1953), the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Superior Films. The court held that a state could not censor films on the basis that they were "harmful" or "immoral". This decision was based on First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression. The film company had challenged an Ohio law which allowed for censorship if a movie was deemed immoral or harmful by state officials. In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that such laws violated constitutional protections against prior restraint - government action that prohibits speech or other expressions before they can take place.

In the dissenting opinion for Superior Films, Inc. v. Department of Education of Ohio, Division of Film Censorship, Hissong, Superintendent (1953), Justice William O. Douglas argued that censorship is a dangerous tool and should not be used to regulate films under the guise of protecting public morality or welfare. He contended that it was unconstitutional for states to censor films based on their content as this violated First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression. Furthermore, he asserted that such censorship could lead down a slippery slope towards more extensive forms of government control over media and other forms of communication which would undermine democratic principles.