Pinky enjoyed wide success in the southern United States, but was banned by the city of
Marshall, Texas, for its subject matter. In Marshall, W. L. Gelling managed the segregated Paramount Theater, where blacks were restricted to the balcony. Gelling booked
Pinky for exhibition in February 1950, a year in which the
First Amendment did not protect movies, subsequent to
Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1915). Marshall's city commission "reactivated" the Board of Censors, established by a 1921 ordinance, and designated five members who demanded the submission of the picture for approval. They disapproved its showing, stating that it was "prejudicial to the best interests of the citizens of the City of Marshall." Gelling exhibited the film anyway and was charged with a misdemeanor. Three board members testified that they objected to the picture because it depicted a white man retaining his love for a woman after learning that she was a Negro, a white man kissing and embracing a Negro woman and two white ruffians assaulting Pinky after she tells them that she is colored. Gelling was convicted and fined $200. He appealed the conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the case of
W. L. Gelling v. State of Texas 343 U.S. 960 (1952), the Court then overturned Gelling's conviction based on the free-speech protections given to movies in the recently decided case of
Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson (1952). In a concurring opinion, Justice
William O. Douglas wrote that the Marshall city ordinance was unconstitutional as it represented
prior restraint on
free speech. "The evil of prior restraint, condemned...by Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 72 S.Ct. 777, in the case of motion pictures, is present here in flagrant form. If a board of censors can tell the American people what it is in their best interests to see or to read or to hear...then thought is regimented, authority substituted for liberty, and the great purpose of the First Amendment to keep uncontrolled the freedom of expression defeated." In his own concurring opinion, Justice
Felix Frankfurter wrote, "This ordinance offends the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on the score of indefiniteness." ==Box-office performance==