Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC

Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission
Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission
	; ; ; Supreme Court of the United States; ;
Argued January 12, 1994; Decided June 27, 1994
Full case name	Turner Broadcasting System, Incorporated, et al., Appellants v. Federal Communications Commission, et al.
Citations	512 U.S. 622 (more) 114 S. Ct. 2445; 129 L. Ed. 2d 497; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 4831; 62 U.S.L.W. 4647; 75 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 609; 22 Media L. Rep. 1865; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4831; 94 Daily Journal DAR 8894; 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 375;
Prior history	On appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Subsequent history	; 520 U.S. 180 (1997)
Court membership
	; Chief Justice; ; William Rehnquist; ; Associate Justices; ; Harry Blackmun · John P. Stevens; Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia; Anthony Kennedy · David Souter; Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg; ;
Case opinions
Majority	Kennedy, joined by unanimous (part I); Rehnquist, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg (parts II-A, II-B); Rehqnuist, Blackmun, Stevens, Souter (parts II-C, II-D, III-A)
Concurrence	Kennedy (parts III-B), joined by Rehnquist, Blackmun, Souter
Concurrence	Blackmun
Concurrence	Stevens
Concur/dissent	O'Connor, joined by Scalia, Ginsburg; Thomas (parts I, III)
Concur/dissent	Ginsburg

United States Supreme Court case

Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), is the first of two United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the must-carry rules imposed on cable television companies. Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission (II), 520 U.S. 180 (1997) was the second. Turner I established that cable television companies were indeed First Amendment speakers but didn't decide whether the federal regulation of their speech infringed upon their speech rights. In Turner II the court decided that the must-carry provisions were constitutional. Under the Miami Herald v. Tornillo case, it was unconstitutional to force a newspaper to run a story the editors would not have included absent a government statute because it was compelled speech which could not pass the strict scrutiny of a compelling state interest being achieved with the least restrictive means necessary to achieve the state interest. However, under the rule of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC the High Court held that a federal agency could regulate broadcast stations (TV and radio) with far greater discretion. In order for federal agency regulation of broadcast media to pass constitutional muster, it need only serve an important state interest and need not narrowly tailor its regulation to the least restrictive means.

Concurrence (Stevens)[edit]

Congress' policy judgment is entitled to substantial deference

Statute did not regulate the content of speech and therefore does not require the court to examine it with heightened scrutiny

External links[edit]

Text of Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

搜尋此網誌

Ndtyjky