Citation network
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. Vs. Fcc
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 12, 1994
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
-
U.S. 622 (1994) October Term, 1993 Syllabus Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., Et Al. V. FederalSearch
-
a content-based regulation and sustained them under the intermediate standard of scrutiny set forth in United States v. O'BrienSearch
-
demanded. The less rigorous standard of scrutiny now reserved for broadcast regulation, see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCCSearch
-
or gatekeeper, control over most programming delivered into subscribers' homes. Miami Herald Publishing Go. v. TornilloSearch
-
U. S. 241 , and Pacific Gas & Elec. Go. v. PublicSearch
-
in a manner that carries the inherent risk of undermining First Amendment interests. Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. RaglandSearch
-
U. S. 221 , and Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
or mountainous communities. The purpose was not to replace broadcast television but to enhance it. See United States v. SouthwesternSearch
-
very existence upon express permission from local governing authorities. See generally Community Communications Co. v. BoulderSearch
-
proceeded to sustain the must-carry provisions under the intermediate standard of scrutiny set forth in United States v. O'BrienSearch
-
speech, and they are entitled to the protection of the speech and press provisions of the First Amendment. Leathers v. MedlockSearch
-
Los Angeles v. PreferredSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
more intrusive regulation of broadcast speakers than of speakers in other media. Compare Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCCSearch
-
U. S. 367 (1969) (television), and National Broadcasting Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 319 U. S. 190 (1943) (radio), with Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. TornilloSearch
-
U. S. 241 (1974) (print), and Riley v. NationalSearch
-
distinct approach to broadcast regulation rests upon the unique physical limitations of the broadcast medium. See FCC v. LeagueSearch
-
mechanism to divide the electromagnetic spectrum and assign specific frequencies to particular broadcasters. See FCC v. LeagueSearch
-
FCC v. NationalSearch
-
see also Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. DemocraticSearch
-
inception,5 we have declined to question its continuing validity as support for our broadcast jurisprudence, see FCC v. LeagueSearch
-
and see no reason to do so here. The broadcast 5 See, e. g., Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. FCCSearch
-
and the other broadcast cases is inapt when determining the First Amendment validity of cable regulation. See Bolger v. YoungsSearch
-
to shield a speech regulation from the First Amendment standards applicable to nonbroadcast media. See, e. g., Austin v. MichiganSearch
-
Federal Election Comm'n v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. TornilloSearch
-
such as Associated Press v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 326 U. S. 1 (1945), and Lorain Journal Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
a generally applicable law may or may not be subject to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment, compare Cohen v. CowlesSearch
-
Media Co., 501 U. S. 663 , 670 (1991), with Barnes v. GlenSearch
-
Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. RaglandSearch
-
programmers, some measure of heightened First Amendment scrutiny is demanded. See Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
of expression, consideration, and adherence. Our political system and cultural life rest upon this ideal. See Leathers v. MedlockSearch
-
U. S., at 449 (citing Cohen v. CaliforniaSearch
-
West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. BarnetteSearch
-
Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. MembersSearch
-
Texas v. JohnsonSearch
-
Perry Ed. Assn. v. PerrySearch
-
to utter or distribute speech bearing a particular message are subject to the same rigorous scrutiny. See Riley v. NationalSearch
-
regulations that are unrelated to the content of speech are subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny, see Clark v. CommunitySearch
-
Ward v. RockSearch
-
The purpose, or justification, of a regulation will often be evident on its face. See Frisby v. SchultzSearch
-
speech from disfavored speech on the basis of the ideas or views expressed are content based. See, e. g., Burson v. FreemanSearch
-
the ideas or views expressed are in most instances content neutral. See, e. g., Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. TaxpayersSearch
-
Heffron v. InternationalSearch
-
its obligations under the Act by altering the programming it offers to subscribers. Cf. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. TornilloSearch
-
may be content based if its manifest purpose is to regulate speech because of the message it conveys. United States v. EichmanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial