The Semiotics of Film in US Supreme Court Cases



This chapter explores the treatment of film as a cultural object among varied legal subject matter in US Supreme Court jurisprudence. Film is significant as an object or industry well beyond its incarnation as popular media. Its role in law – even the highest level of US appellate law – is similarly varied and goes well beyond the subject of a copyright case (as a moving picture) or as an evidentiary proffer (as a video of a criminal confession). This chapter traces the discussion of film in US Supreme Court cases in order to map the wide-ranging and diverse ­relations of film to law – a semiotics of film in the high court’s jurisprudence – to decouple the notion of film with entertainment or visual truth.

This chapter discerns the many ways in which the court perceives the role of film in legal disputes and social life. It also illuminates how the court imagines and reconstitutes through its decisions the evolving forms and significances of film and film spectatorship as an interactive public for film in society. As such, this project contributes to the work on the legal construction of social life, exploring how court cases constitute social reality through their legal discourse. It also speaks to film enthusiasts and critics who understand that film is much more than entertainment and is, in practice, a conduit of information and a mechanism for lived experience. Enmeshed in the fabric of society, film is political, commercial, expressive, violent, technologically sophisticated, economically valuable, uniquely persuasive, and, as these cases demonstrate, constantly evolving.


  1. Austin, Regina. 2006. The next “New Wave”: Law-genre documentaries, lawyering in support of the creative process, and visual legal advocacy. Fordham Intellectual Property Media & Entertainment Law Journal 16: 809–868.Google Scholar
  2. Beebe, Barton. 2004. The semiotic analysis of trademark law. UCLA Law Review 51: 621, 629–633.Google Scholar
  3. Buchanan, Ruth, Rebecca Johnson. 2008. Strange encounters: Exploring law and film in the affective register. Law, Politics & Society, 46: 33, 33–34. See also Elizabeth Carolyn Miller. 2008. Framed: The new woman criminal in British culture at the Fin de Siècle. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chase, Anthony. 2002. Movies on trial: The legal system on the silver screen. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chase, Anthony. 1996. Legal reelism: Film as legal texts, ed. John Denvir. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  6. Johnson, Rebecca. 2000. Leaving normal: Constructing the family at the movies in law. In New perspectives on deviance: The construction of deviance in everyday life, ed. Lori G. Beaman, 163–179. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Kahan, Dan M., David A. Hoffman, and Donald Braman. 2009. Whose eyes are you going to believe: Scott v. Harris and the perils of cognitive illiberalism. Harvard Law Review 122: 837–906.Google Scholar
  8. Kamir, Orit. 2006. Framed: Women in law and film. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Leyda, Jay. 1973. Kino: A history of the Russian and Soviet film, 161. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lucia, Cynthia. 2005. Framing female lawyers: Women on trial in film. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  11. Mnookin, Jennifer. 1998. The image of truth: Photographic evidence and the power of analogy. Yale Journal Law & Humanities 10: 1.Google Scholar
  12. Murray, Melissa. 2009. Strange bedfellows: Criminal Law, family law, and the legal construction of intimate life. Iowa Law Review 94: 1253–1314.Google Scholar
  13. Schauer, Fred. 1979. Speech and “Speech” – Obscenity and “Obscenity”: An exercise in the interpretation of constitutional language. Georgetown Law Journal 67: 899, 906, 922, 923, 926.Google Scholar
  14. Sherwin, Richard. 2011. The visual persuasion project at New York Law School. Accessed 28 Jan 2011.
  15. Silbey, Jessica. 2001. Patterns of courtroom justice. Journal of Law Society 28: 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Silbey, Jessica. 2002. What we do when we do law and popular culture. Law & Society Inquiry 27: 139, 141–142.Google Scholar
  17. Silbey, Jessica. 2004. Judges as film critics: New approaches to filmic evidence. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 37: 493–572.Google Scholar
  18. Silbey, Jessica. 2005. Filmmaking in the precinct house and the genre of documentary film. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 29: 107–108.Google Scholar
  19. Silbey, Jessica. 2007a. A history of representations of justice: Coincident preoccupations of law and film. In Representations of justice, ed. Masson Antoine and O’Connor Kevin, 131–152. New York: P.I.E. – Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  20. Silbey, Jessica. 2007b. Criminal performances: Film, autobiography, and confession. New Mexico Law Review 37: 189–243.Google Scholar
  21. Silbey, Jessica. 2008. Cross-examining film. University Maryland Law Journal Race, Religion Gender & Class 8: 17.Google Scholar
  22. Stone, Geoffrey, et al. 1996. Constitutional law, 3rd ed, 1226–1227. Gaithersburg: Aspen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Suffolk University Law SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations