American Constitutionalism in Historical Perspective (packet)


Public access programming


Download 0.79 Mb.
bet58/137
Sana25.02.2023
Hajmi0.79 Mb.
#1228399
1   ...   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   ...   137
Bog'liq
Richards[1].ConstitutionalLaw.Fall2005.3 (1)

Public access programming

  1. FCC v. League of Women Voters: invalidated law prohibiting public stations from editorializing. Content-based law but applied standard lower than strict scrutiny.

  2. Arkansas Educational TV Commission (AETC): allowed public TV to exclude candidate from candidate debate. 1st A d/n compel public broadcasters to allow 3rd parties access to their programming—no access obligation.

  • Cable:

    1. Turner Broadcasting v. FCC (1994) p. 1496: d/n apply Red Lion b/c cable TV d/n suffer from inherent limitations of broadcast TV. But still upheld must carry laws b/c they were content-neutral due to cable’s monopoly over shows.

    2. Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium: (1996) p. 1498 Red Lion inapplicable to cable—no access obligation. Lower standard of scrutiny of access obligation for broadcast media than for print media. Refused to decide whether cable is more analogous to print or to broadcasting but held that cable operators should enjoy same 1st A rts as non-broadcast media—operator’s rt is preeminent. Kennedy: gov’t c/n authorize content based discrim on public access channels.

  • Internet:

    1. Pacifica and Red Lion not applicable—no access obligation.

    2. Reno v. ACLU (1997) p. 1501 rejects analogy b/w internet & broadcasting. Internet not invasive, not limited w/ a scarcity of available frequency at inception, and d/n have same history of regulation like broadcasting.

    1. Government and the Media: Of Censorship and Gag Orders (pp. 1350-1372) High level of scrutiny due to concern over licensing and prior restraints on free speech rights.

        1. Freedman v. Maryland, 1965: court imposed special procedural constraints for licensing. Found licensing unconstitutional b/c it was too difficult for any scheme to satisfy free speech concerns. Can have license for obscene speech but line b/w obscene and non-obscene so vague that it raises constitutional probs. Will only allow licensing if:


          1. Download 0.79 Mb.

            Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:
  • 1   ...   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   ...   137




    Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
    ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling