Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the actions of the Rhode Island Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth, which involved pressuring distributors to stop selling certain publications, violated the First Amendment by creating an unconstitutional system of informal censorship.

[4] Justice John Marshall Harlan II dissented, arguing that the majorities decision failed to justify ruling against the commission's actions which he viewed only as an attempt to deal with a societal problem rather than a suppression of free speech.

Beyond its initial focus on public education and investigation of obscene materials, the commission was now even more dedicated to specific measures to combat juvenile delinquency and promote morality among youth.

The revised mandate directed the commission to investigate situations that might lead to what the state deemed undesirable juvenile behavior and to educate the public on these contributing factors.

Four out-of-state publishers, including Bantam Books, Inc., sought injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment in a Rhode Island court, asserting that the law and its practices were unconstitutional.

The commission had sent notices to book wholesalers and retailers stating, "The Chiefs of Police have been given the names of the aforementioned magazines with the order that they are not to be sold, distributed, or displayed to youths under 18 years of age.

[9] It upheld the constitutionality of the resolution but found the commission's application of it to be unconstitutional, thereby reversing part of the Superior Court's decree and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Justice Brennan's opinion stated that the commission's practice of notifying book distributors and retailers about "objectionable" publications, combined with implied threats of legal action, effectively made a system of informal censorship.

[11][4] Brennan states that the commission's actions made distributors and retailers weary of carrying additional adult-themed books and were under pressure to remove said publications they already have from sale.

The ruling underscored that any attempt to restrict speech must pass stringent legal scrutiny and cannot be based on vague or broad standards that allow for arbitrary enforcement.

The decision emphasized that prior restraints on speech should be generally presumed unconstitutional unless justified by a compelling state interest and must be implemented through a narrowly tailored lens.