Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC

Last updated

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 2–3, 1969
Decided June 8, 1969
Full case nameRed Lion Broadcasting Company, Incorporated, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al.
Citations395 U.S. 367 ( more )
89 S. Ct. 1794; 23 L. Ed. 2d 371; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 3267; 1 Media L. Rep. 2053
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior381 F.2d 908 (D.C. Cir. 1967); cert. granted, 389 U.S. 968(1967);
Radio Television News Directors Ass'n v. United States, 400 F.2d 1002 (7th Cir. 1968); cert. granted, consolidated, 393 U.S. 1014(1969).
Holding
The First Amendment permits a federal agency to regulate the speech of broadcasters in the interest of maintaining the public interest in equitable use of scarce broadcasting frequencies. Consequently, the Fairness doctrine is constitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall
Case opinion
MajorityWhite, joined by Warren, Black, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall
Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), was a seminal First Amendment ruling at the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that radio broadcasters enjoyed free speech rights under the First Amendment, but those rights could be partially restricted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to maintain the public interest in equitable use of scarce broadcasting frequencies. As a result, the FCC's Fairness Doctrine was found to be constitutional. [1]

Contents

Background

In November 1964, Pennsylvania radio station WGCB, owned by Red Lion Broadcasting, aired a 15-minute broadcast in which Reverend Billy James Hargis criticized author/journalist Fred J. Cook, who had written a book that shed a poor light on Senator Barry Goldwater. Hargis also alleged that Cook was affiliated with Communists. When Cook learned about the broadcast, he demanded free airtime on WGCB to respond to Hargis's personal attacks against him, which was permissible under the Fairness Doctrine. The station rejected the request, after which Cook filed a complaint with the FCC. [1]

The FCC ruled that the WGCB broadcast was indeed a personal attack against Cook, and the station was obligated under the Fairness Doctrine to offer free airtime to Cook so he could issue a reply. WGCB again refused to offer time to Cook under the doctrine's equal time and right of reply rules. The FCC then ruled that Red Lion Broadcasting had violated the Fairness Doctrine, which could result in the loss of their broadcast license. [1]

Red Lion Broadcasting filed suit and claimed that the Fairness Doctrine was a violation of the First Amendment because it compelled a broadcaster to issue time to, and air commentary from, parties that it may not contract with voluntarily. Red Lion also claimed that the doctrine violated various other rights in the Constitution and several rules about vague and uncertain regulations. [2] The United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the FCC, holding that the Fairness Doctrine did not violate any parts of the Constitution. [2]

Red Lion Broadcasting appealed the circuit court decision to the United States Supreme Court.

Opinion of the court

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the FCC, upholding the Fairness Doctrine and ruling that it was "the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences." [1] The court strongly suggested that broadcasters are First Amendment speakers whose editorial speech is protected. Regardless, in upholding the Fairness Doctrine, the Court based its rationale on challenges created by the scarce radio spectrum, because broadcast media outlets were limited at the time. [1]

Justice Byron White delivered the Opinion of the Court and came to the conclusion that the federal government could place restrictions on broadcasters that could not be placed on ordinary individuals. He stated that "without government control, the medium would be of little use because of the cacophony of competing voices, none of which could be clearly and predictably heard." [1] It was decided that even though broadcasting is a medium that enjoys free speech protections, the specific technical challenges of broadcasting justify differences in the application of the First Amendment. [3]

The Court further explained that the First Amendment does not allow broadcasters who are licensed by the government to use scarce public resources (frequencies) to deny that same resource to others, which would itself be an indirect form of censorship. Meanwhile, even though the Fairness Doctrine's rules may discourage broadcasters from addressing controversial issues in the first place (a possible chilled speech effect), as had been claimed by Red Lion Broadcasting, the FCC still had the authority to prevent abusive coverage of such issues. [1]

Justice White also held that it is the rights of viewers and listeners that are most important, not the rights of broadcasters. The Fairness Doctrine required that those who were discussed or criticized be given the chance to respond to the statements made by broadcasters, and the Court believed that this helped create a more informed public. Justice White explained that without this doctrine, station owners would only have people on the air who agreed with their own opinions. [3] [4]

Impact

Although Justice William O. Douglas did not participate in the Red Lion ruling, he later stated in Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee that he would have dissented, arguing that the Constitutional right to freedom of the press was absolute, and the government could never compel a radio station to broadcast what it did not wish to. [5]

The Red Lion ruling has been widely cited as one of the most important Supreme Court rulings on the matter of broadcasting and media, because it solidified the public interest in equitable use of then-scarce public broadcast airwaves, which can justify some partial restrictions on the free speech rights of broadcasters by the Federal Communications Commission. [6] [7] [8] However, the ruling is still being used as a precedent in disputes over much later mass media technologies that have made concerns over scarce frequencies largely obsolete. This has inspired some criticism and calls for reappraisal of the precedent. [9] [10] [11]

This ruling is also part of an inconsistent duo of cases, with the other being Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo , in which the Supreme Court upheld different levels of government regulation for print media vs. broadcast media. [12] This has resulted in frequent criticism of the differing free speech protections for different types of mass media simply because of their delivery methods. [13] [14] [15]

Related Research Articles

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), was a seminal First Amendment ruling at the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overturned a Florida state law that required newspapers to offer equal space to political candidates who wished to respond to election-related editorials or endorsements. That law was found to be an unconstitutional restriction of freedom of the press under the First Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Seven dirty words</span> Words disallowed in U.S. radio and TV

The seven dirty words are seven English-language curse words that American comedian George Carlin first listed in his 1972 "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" monologue. The words, in the order Carlin listed them, are: "shit", "piss", "fuck", "cunt", "cocksucker", "motherfucker", and "tits".

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, unanimously ruling that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. This was the first major Supreme Court ruling on the regulation of materials distributed via the Internet.

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that defined the power of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over indecent material as applied to broadcasting.

The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or congressional legislation. The FCC removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Billy James Hargis</span> American televangelist (1925–2004)

Billy James Hargis was an American Christian evangelist. At the height of his popularity in the 1950s and 1960s, his Christian Crusade ministry was broadcast on over 500 radio stations and 250 television stations. He promoted an anti-Communist, segregationist message as well as evangelizing, and founded a radio station, monthly newspaper, and a college in Tulsa, Oklahoma to support his ministries. In 1974, several students at his American Christian College accused Hargis of sexual misconduct; however, the Tulsa district attorney found no evidence of wrongdoing. Hargis went into partial retirement, and the college closed in 1977. He continued to publish his newspaper and write books.

WGLD is a commercial radio station licensed to serve Manchester Township, Pennsylvania. The station is owned by Victor Martinez, through licensee VP Broadcasting LLC.

National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that decisions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on how to regulate Internet service providers are eligible for Chevron deference, in which the judiciary defers to an administrative agency's expertise under its governing statutes. While the case concerned routine regulatory processes at the FCC and applied to interpretations of the Communications Act of 1934 and Telecommunications Act of 1996, the ruling has become an important precedent on the matter of regulating network neutrality in the United States.

Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), is the first of two United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the must-carry rules imposed on cable television companies. Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission (II), 520 U.S. 180 (1997) was the second. Turner I established that cable television companies were indeed First Amendment speakers but didn't decide whether the federal regulation of their speech infringed upon their speech rights. In Turner II the court decided that the must-carry provisions were constitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fred J. Cook</span> American investigative journalist

Fred James Cook was an American investigative journalist, author and historian who has been published extensively in The Nation, the Asbury Park Press andThe New York Times. He wrote from a contemporary perspective about the Hindenburg disaster, Alger Hiss, the FBI, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Barry Goldwater, the Watergate scandal, the Mafia, the Ku Klux Klan, political bosses and healthcare in the United States. He has also written about historic events such as the American Revolutionary War, P.T. Barnum, the Pinkertons and Theodore Roosevelt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">WSOX</span> Radio station in Red Lion, Pennsylvania

WSOX is a commercial radio station licensed to serve Red Lion, Pennsylvania. The station is owned by Cumulus Media through licensee Radio License Holding SRC, LLC and broadcasts a classic hits format. The station's service contour includes the metro areas of York, Harrisburg, Lebanon, Gettysburg and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, as well as the northern suburbs of Baltimore, Maryland. Its broadcast tower is located near Red Lion at.

A fleeting expletive is a non-scripted verbal profanity or obscenity expressed and broadcast during a live television broadcast or radio broadcast. The term appears primarily in discussions of United States broadcasting law.

The personal attack rule was a corollary to the Federal Communications Commission's fairness doctrine that mandated response time for an individual or group attacked during "origination cablecasting" that focused on a controversial issue of public importance. After the fairness doctrine was repealed in 1987, the personal attack rule persisted until 2000, when it was first suspended and then abolished after an FCC comment period.

Radio regulation in the United States was enforced to eliminate different stations from broadcasting on each other's airwaves. Regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, standardization was encouraged by the chronological and economic advances experienced by the United States of America. Commenced in 1910, before the Communications Act of 1934 was passed, the Federal Radio Commission was the first organization established to control the functioning of radio as a whole through the Commerce Clause. Airwaves run across interstate and international waters, leading to some form of regulation. As years progressed, deregulation was strongly encouraged to provide a little independence from the government.

The Mayflower doctrine was a mandate implemented by the U.S. Government Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required American radio broadcasters to "provide full and equal opportunity for the presentation to the public all sides of public issues". The doctrine was the predecessor of the fairness doctrine that was introduced by the FCC in 1949.

The Zapple doctrine pertained to a particular sort of political speech in the United States, for which a candidate or his supporters bought air time but the candidate himself did not actually participate in the broadcast. The content could be supportive of the candidate, or be used to criticize his political opponent(s). It went into effect in 1970.

Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-1702, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to limitations on First Amendment-based free speech placed by private operators. The Court held that a public access station was not considered a state actor for purposes of evaluating free speech issues in a 5–4 ruling split along ideological lines. Prior to the Court's decision, analysts believed that the case had the potential to determine whether limitations on free speech on social media violate First Amendment rights. However, the Court's narrow holding avoided that issue.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">WLYH (TV)</span> Religious TV station in Red Lion, Pennsylvania

WLYH is a religious independent television station licensed to Red Lion, Pennsylvania, United States, serving the Susquehanna Valley region. Owned by Sonshine Family Television, it is a sister station to Bethlehem-based flagship WBPH-TV. WLYH's studios are located on Windsor Road in Red Lion. Through a channel sharing agreement with Harrisburg-licensed ABC affiliate WHTM-TV, the two stations transmit using WHTM-TV's spectrum from an antenna on a ridge north of I-81 along the Cumberland–Perry county line.

Comcast Cablevision of Broward County, Inc. v. Broward County, Florida, 124 F.Supp.2d 685, was a ruling at the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over the constitutionality of a local ordinance requiring an Internet service provider to share its physical network with competitors. The ruling is often cited as an important early precedent on the matter of network neutrality and the free speech rights of Internet service providers.

Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Brothers Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470 (1940), was an early precedent on the enforcement of broadcasting law in the United States. The Supreme Court held that when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) makes spectrum allocation decisions regarding the use of broadcast frequencies by radio stations, such decisions should be made to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity as defined by the Communications Act of 1934. Consequently, such decisions by the FCC do not need to consider the profitability or business interests of the companies assigned such frequencies, or those of their competitors.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 390 (1969).
  2. 1 2 Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 381 F. 2d 908 (D.C. Cir., 1967)
  3. 1 2 Gillman, Howard; Graber, Mark A.; Whittington, Keith E. (2013). American Constitutionalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 558–561. ISBN   978-0-19-975135-8.
  4. ↑ "Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC - ACLU Pros & Cons - ProCon.org". aclu.procon.org. Archived from the original on December 8, 2015. Retrieved December 5, 2015.
  5. ↑ "CBS v. Democratic National Committee". Justia. Retrieved August 17, 2022.
  6. ↑ Blake, Jonathan D. (1969). "Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC: Fairness and the Emperor's New Clothes". Federal Communications Bar Journal. 23 (2): 75–92 – via HeinOnline.
  7. ↑ Marks, Richard D. (1970). "Broadcasting and Censorship: First Amendment Theory After Red Lion". George Washington Law Review. 38 (5): 974–1005 – via HeinOnline.
  8. ↑ Campbell, Angela J. (2008). "The Legacy of Red Lion". Administrative Law Review. 60 (4): 783–792 – via HeinOnline.
  9. ↑ Patrick, Dennis R.; Silberstein, Diane L. (Summer 1985). "Red Lion Still Has Broadcasters Singing the Blues". Communications Lawyer. 3 (3): 1–19 – via HeinOnline.
  10. ↑ Hazlett, Thomas W.; Oh, Sarah; Clark, Drew (Fall 2010). "The Overly Active Corpse of Red Lion". Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property. 9 (9): 51–95 – via HeinOnline.
  11. ↑ Powe Jr., L.A. (2009). "Red Lion and Pacifica: Are They Relics?". Pepperdine Law Review. 36 (2): 445–462 – via HeinOnline.
  12. ↑ Lipsky Jr., Abbott B. (February 1976). "Reconciling Red Lion and Tornillo: A Consistent Theory of Media Regulation". Stanford Law Review. 28 (3): 563–588. doi:10.2307/1228307. JSTOR   1228307 – via HeinOnline.
  13. ↑ Emord, Jonathan W. (1992). "The First Amendment Invalidity of FCC Content Regulations". Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy. 6 (1): 93–216 – via HeinOnline.
  14. ↑ Soriano, Josephine (Spring 2006). "The Digital Transition and the First Amendment: Is It Time to Reevaluate Red Lion's Scarcity Rationale?". Boston University Public Interest Law Journal. 15 (2): 341–356 – via HeinOnline.
  15. ↑ Calvert, Clay (2022). "First Amendment Battles over-Anti-Deplatforming Statutes: Examining Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo's Relevance for Today's Online Social Media Platform Cases". New York University Law Review Online. 97: 1–17 – via HeinOnline.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.