Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is orphaned as few or no other articles link to it.
Please help introduce links in articles on related topics. (November 2006)

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; 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

Holding

Court membership

Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
Associate Justices: Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Case opinions

Majority by: 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 by: Kennedy (parts III-B)
Joined by: Rehnquist, Blackmun, Souter
Concurrence by: Blackmun
Concurrence by: Stevens
Concurrence/dissent by: O'Connor
Joined by: Scalia, Ginsburg; Thomas (parts I, III)
Concurrence/dissent by: Ginsburg

Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), is the second of two United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the must carry rules imposed on cable television companies. Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission (I) was the first. Turner I established that cable television companies were indeed 1.) First Amendment speakers but didn't decide whether the federal regulation of their speech trenched 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) - 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