Citation network
Fcc Vs. Pacifica Foundation
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jul 03, 1978
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
FCC v. PacificaSearch
-
Foundation - 438 U.S. 726 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court FCC v. PacificaSearch
-
Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) Federal Communications Commission v. PacificaSearch
-
to conconformance with accepted standards of morality. Contrary to respondent's argument, this Court, in Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
broadcasts containing patently offensive references to sexual and excretory activities. Cf. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCCSearch
-
The First Amendment does not prohibit all governmental regulation that depends on the content of speech. Schenck v. UnitedSearch
-
Black v. CutterSearch
-
constitutional questions, for it is our settled practice to avoid the unnecessary decision of such issues. Rescue Army v. MunicipalSearch
-
broadly in an adjudicatory proceeding, federal courts have never been empowered to issue advisory opinions. See Herb v. PitcairnSearch
-
Thus, for example, in his opinion in Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith v. FCCSearch
-
U.S.App.D.C. at 150-151, n. 3, 403 F.2d at 173-174, n. 3. See also Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCCSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
meaning of the anti-censorship provision. H.R.Rep. No. 304, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A106 (1947). Cf. Tidewater Oil Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
as that term was defined in Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
in Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
s coverage is limited to obscenity, the Court followed the lead of Mr. Justice Harlan in Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. DaySearch
-
by reading into it the limits set by Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
it cannot be adequately judged in the abstract. The approach is also consistent with Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCCSearch
-
self-censorship of controversial program Page 438 U. S. 743 content. Radio Television News Directors Assn. v. UnitedSearch
-
the constitutionality of these regulations by envisioning the most extreme applications conceivable, United States v. SullivanSearch
-
some of these references may be protected, they surely lie at the periphery of First Amendment concern. Cf. Bates v. StateSearch
-
Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350 , 433 U. S. 380 -381. Young v. AmericanSearch
-
of speech are critical elements of First Amendment analysis is Mr. Justice Holmes' statement for the Court in Schenck v. UnitedSearch
-
in the years since Schenck. The government may forbid speech calculated to provoke a fight. See Chaplinsky v. NewSearch
-
Bates v. StateSearch
-
It may treat libels against private citizens more severely than libels against public officials. See Gertz v. RobertSearch
-
Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 . Obscenity may be wholly prohibited. Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Young v. AmericanSearch
-
the protection of the First Amendment because their content is so offensive to contemporary moral standards. Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
Chaplinski v. NewSearch
-
of the First Amendment. Some uses of even the most offensive words are unquestionably protected. See, e.g., Hess v. IndianaSearch
-
are shocking in another. To paraphrase Mr. Justice Harlan, one occasion's lyric is another's vulgarity. Cf. Cohen v. CaliforniaSearch
-
We have long recognized that each medium of expression presents special First Amendment problems. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. WilsonSearch
-
publishers from being required to print the replies of those whom they criticize, Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. TornilloSearch
-
on the contrary, they must give free time to the victims of their criticism. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCCSearch
-
home, where the individual's right to be left alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of an intruder. Rowan v. PostSearch
-
theaters, for example, may be prohibited from making indecent material available to children. We held in Ginsberg v. NewSearch
-
Euclid v. AmblerSearch
-
radio receivers are in the home, a place where people's privacy interest is entitled to extra deference, see Rowan v. PostSearch
-
In KFKB Broadcasting Assn. v. FederalSearch
-
App.D.C. at 81, 47 F.2d at 672. In Trinity Methodist Church, South v. FederalSearch
-
Bay State Beacon, Inc. v. FCCSearch
-
Idaho Microwave, Inc. v. FCCSearch
-
National Assn. of Theatre Owners v. FCCSearch
-
civil penalties changes the statutory structure, no substantive change was apparently intended. Cf. Tidewater Oil Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
reconsideration, 41 F.C.C.2d 777 (1973), aff'd on other grounds sub nom. Illinois Citizens Committee for Broadcasting v. FCCSearch
-
F.C.C. 250 (1962), reconsideration denied, 34 F.C.C. 101 (1963), aff'd on other grounds sub nom. Robinson v. FCCSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial