Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
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
Court membership
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

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 entrenched upon their speech rights. 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 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. See levels of First Amendment Protection for different media

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

See also[edit]

External links[edit]

  • Text of Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) is available from:  Findlaw  Justia