## Facts

- A state-operated university film theater scheduled *Hail Mary*, a controversial film depicting the Virgin Mary and the birth of Jesus Christ in a modern setting.
- A state senator contacted the theater urging cancellation, calling the film “blasphemous,” warning of demonstrations, and signaling potential legislative action; the theater had recently faced reduced funding.
- The theater director canceled the screening, citing the film’s controversial nature, anticipated public offense, possible unrest, and the effort required to defend the showing.
- The cancellation was the first time the theater had canceled a scheduled film.
- Prospective viewers sued the theater director and the university’s governing board under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of their First Amendment right to receive information and ideas.

## Issues

1. Whether a state university theater violates the First Amendment by canceling a scheduled film in response to political pressure tied to the film’s religious content and controversy.
2. Whether anticipated demonstrations or unrest justify suppressing access to protected expression in a state-operated expressive venue.

## Decision

- The court held that canceling the film violated plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to receive information and ideas.
- The theater’s action was attributable to the state and subject to First Amendment constraints.
- The cancellation was treated as content-based (and effectively viewpoint-based) suppression motivated by objections to the film’s message and public controversy.
- Speculative concerns about hostile audience reaction did not justify the cancellation and amounted to an impermissible “heckler’s veto.”
- Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs on the First Amendment claim.

## Legal Principles

- The First Amendment protects both expression and the public’s right to receive information and ideas.
- When the government operates a venue opened for expressive activity, it may not exclude works based on ideology, viewpoint, or controversy absent the highest level of justification.
- Content- and viewpoint-based restrictions in such a forum are presumptively unconstitutional and must satisfy strict scrutiny.
- Government may not suppress protected expression due to anticipated hostile audience reaction; public-order rationales must rest on concrete, imminent threats and be narrowly tailored.

## Conclusion

A state university may not cancel a scheduled film showing because political officials or segments of the public find the film offensive or because of speculative fears of demonstrations; doing so violates the First Amendment rights of intended viewers to receive protected expression.


Brown v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Neb., 640 F. Supp. 674 (D. Neb. 1986)