national security.[7] It was also the first time that Massachusetts recognized a right to privacy at the state level.[6] Wiseman has said, “The obvious point that I was making was that the restriction of the court was a greater infringement of civil liberties than the film was an infringement on the liberties of the inmates.”[6]

Little changed until 1987, when the families of seven inmates who died at the hospital sued the hospital and state. Steven Schwartz represented one of the inmates. Schwartz's client was "restrained for 2½ months and given six psychiatric drugs at vastly unsafe levels—choked to death because he could not swallow his food."[8] Schwartz has said, "There is a direct connection between the decision not to show that film publicly and my client dying 20years later, and a whole host of other people dying in between"[8] and that "in the years since Mr. Wiseman made 'Titicut Follies', most of the nation's big mental institutions have been closed or cut back by court orders."[9] In addition, "the film may have also influenced the closing of the institution featured in the film".[10]

In 1991, Superior Court Judge Andrew Meyer allowed the film to be released to the general public, saying that as time had passed, privacy concerns had become less important than First Amendment concerns. He also said that many of the former patients had died, so there was little risk of a violation of their dignity.[4] The state Supreme Court ordered that "A brief explanation shall be included in the film that changes and