Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission | |
---|---|
Argued October 7, 1996 Decided March 31, 1997 | |
Full case name | Turner Broadcasting System, Incorporated, et al., Appellants v. Federal Communications Commission, et al. |
Citations | 520 U.S. 180 (more) |
Case history | |
Prior | Turner Broadcasting v. FCC, 910 F. Supp. 734 (D.D.C., 1995); Turner Broadcasting v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994); Turner Broadcasting v. FCC, 819 F. Supp. 32 (D.D.C., 1993). |
Holding | |
Must-carry regulations are not a violation of the First Amendment rights of cable television companies. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kennedy, joined by unanimous (Part I); Rehnquist, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg (Parts II–A and II–B); Rehnquist, Blackmun, Stevens, Souter (Parts II–C, II–D, and III–A) |
Concurrence | Kennedy (Part III–B), joined by Rehnquist, Blackmun, Souter |
Concurrence | Blackmun |
Concurrence | Stevens (in part) |
Concur/dissent | O'Connor, joined by Scalia, Ginsburg; Thomas (Parts I and III) |
Concur/dissent | Ginsburg |
Laws applied | |
First Amendment, Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act |
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC is the general title of two rulings of the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionality of must-carry regulations enforced by the Federal Communications Commission on cable television operators. In the first ruling, known colloquially as Turner I, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), the Supreme Court held that cable television companies were First Amendment speakers who enjoyed free speech rights when determining what channels and content to carry on their networks, but demurred on whether the must-carry rules at issue were restrictions of those rights.[1] After a remand to a lower court for fact-finding on the economic effects of the then-recent Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, the dispute returned to the Supreme Court. In Turner II, 520 U.S. 180 (1997), the Supreme Court held that must-carry rules for cable television companies were not restrictions of their free speech rights because the U.S. government had a compelling interest in enabling the distribution of media content from multiple sources and in preserving local television.[2]