Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC

Last updated

Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 7, 1996
Decided March 31, 1997
Full case nameTurner Broadcasting System, Incorporated, et al., Appellants v. Federal Communications Commission, et al.
Citations520 U.S. 180 ( more )
Case history
PriorTurner 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
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, 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)
ConcurrenceKennedy (Part III–B), joined by Rehnquist, Blackmun, Souter
ConcurrenceBlackmun
ConcurrenceStevens (in part)
Concur/dissentO'Connor, joined by Scalia, Ginsburg; Thomas (Parts I and III)
Concur/dissentGinsburg
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]

Contents

Background

When American consumers widely migrated to cable television in the 1980s, regulators became concerned about the viability of older terrestrial and local television stations, which may not have been able to compete with cable TV but which were essential for delivering local news and other essential information. Meanwhile, consumers who had signed up for cable service would have no further need for their antennas, which were previously the only means to pick up local TV stations. [1]

Typically, cable television network operators voluntarily carried local stations because they were popular with consumers, but those channels took up space on the cable network that could be dedicated to more profitable channels. [3] The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, via a group of provisions that became known as must-carry regulations, required cable operators to include all relevant local broadcast stations in their offerings to an area's consumers, and to dedicate up to one-third of their channels for this purpose if necessary. This was done to promote localism in television content as required by the Communications Act of 1934, and to maintain the viability of local broadcasters. The rules were to be enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). [4]

Soon after the statute's passage, various cable television companies, represented by Turner Broadcasting System, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The companies alleged that they exercised free speech via their content delivery choices, and the must-carry rules requiring them to provide television channels that they would not carry otherwise were a form of unconstitutional compelled speech. Furthermore, the companies argued that the must-carry rules were a type of content-based regulation that required a strict scrutiny analysis to determine if the government's interest in molding the television marketplace outweighed the companies' First Amendment rights. [5] In 1993 the District Court rejected those arguments and held that the must-carry rules were a type of economic regulation in which Congress employed "its regulatory powers over the economy to impose order upon a market in dysfunction." Under a less demanding intermediate scrutiny analysis for non-content-based regulations, the District Court held that the preservation of local broadcasting was an important governmental interest, and that the must-carry provisions were acceptably tailored to serve that interest. [5]

Turner Broadcasting System appealed that decision. Statutory provisions for cases involving federal regulations allowed a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari in 1994. [1]

Turner I ruling

In the Supreme Court's first review of the must-carry rules, now known as the Turner I ruling, the court focused primarily on whether the rules were a content-based regulation requiring a strict scrutiny analysis to determine if freedom of speech or freedom of the press had been violated. [1] This in turn required a more complex examination of whether requiring a cable company to carry a TV station against its will was a type of compelled speech. Government attempts to require a media outlet to publish content against its will were deemed unconstitutional under the First Amendment in Miami Herald v. Tornillo (1974). [6] However, that case involved newspapers, and the Supreme Court had also ruled in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969) that the FCC had greater economic authority over television due to the scarcity of broadcast frequencies and the pervasiveness of mass media content. [7] Furthermore, courts had also determined that cable television operators had obligations to local communities due to the burdens of building network infrastructure. [1]

These conflicting precedents necessitated an updated analysis of whether must-carry rules were benefits to local communities and whether they were burdensome for cable TV operators, with the assumption that those operators have free speech rights as well. The Supreme Court found the analysis of these matters, by both the District Court and by Congress when writing the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, to be deficient. Thus, the Supreme Court vacated the 1993 District Court ruling that upheld the must-carry rules, and remanded the case to that court for further fact-finding on the economic and speech implications of the statute. [1]

The case landed back at the District of Columbia District Court in 1995 for further investigation of impacts on consumers and cable companies. That court then reached the same conclusion that it had in 1993, with evidence that the impacts of the must-carry regulations were purely economic with no significant burden on content or the free speech rights of cable companies. Again exercising a less demanding intermediate scrutiny analysis for non-content-based regulations, the District Court held that the government had an important interest in preserving local broadcast TV channels. [8]

Turner Broadcasting System once again appealed to the Supreme Court, again with a compelled speech argument regardless of the additional evidence compiled by the District Court. [2]

Turner II ruling

The Supreme Court heard the updated case, now known as Turner II, in late 1996. Acknowledging the cable companies' compelled speech argument, the Supreme Court analyzed the must-carry regulations under the more demanding strict scrutiny analysis to determine if the companies' free speech rights were violated. This time, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government. Under strict scrutiny, preservation of local television was found the be a compelling government interest, the regulations were narrowly-tailored by only requiring those stations to be added to an existing cable network that likely had space available, and allowing consumer choice on which channels to watch was not unduly restrictive for cable operators. Therefore, the must-carry regulations were constitutional and did not infringe on the First Amendment rights of cable television companies. [2]

Impact

After the Supreme Court's final ruling in 1997 on the constitutionality of must-carry cable regulations, the enforcement of such regulations by the FCC was deemed essential in prolonging the viability of local television channels in an unfavorable media landscape, while cable networks rapidly expanded in capacity and being required to carry local channels became less of a technological burden. [9] These developments were particularly important for the viability of public television in the United States, which was unlikely to be financially viable in the cable-dominated marketplace. [10]

However, many legal commentators were unconvinced by the Supreme Court's stance that must-carry regulations were not compelled speech or a taking of property, [11] [12] and others found the court's examination of the economic impacts on local and national media markets to be insufficient. [13] [14] The case was influential throughout the era in which cable was the dominant format for consumer television, but its applicability for later digital and streaming systems is uncertain. [13] [15]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Communications Commission</span> Independent U.S. government agency

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government that regulates communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable across the United States. The FCC maintains jurisdiction over the areas of broadband access, fair competition, radio frequency use, media responsibility, public safety, and homeland security.

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.

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld the ability of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate indecent content sent over the broadcast airwaves.

Public-access television is traditionally a form of non-commercial mass media where the general public can create content television programming which is narrowcast through cable television specialty channels. Public-access television was created in the United States between 1969 and 1971 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under Chairman Dean Burch, based on pioneering work and advocacy of George Stoney, Red Burns, and Sidney Dean.

In cable television, governments apply a must-carry regulation stating that locally licensed television stations must be carried on a cable provider's system.

Superstation is a term in North American broadcasting that has several meanings. Commonly, a "superstation" is a form of distant signal, a broadcast television signal—usually a commercially licensed station—that is retransmitted via communications satellite or microwave relay to multichannel television providers over a broad area beyond its primary terrestrial signal range.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">CableCARD</span> Digital cable smart card

CableCARD is a special-use PC Card device that allows consumers in the United States to view and record digital cable television channels on digital video recorders, personal computers and television sets on equipment such as a set-top box not provided by a cable television company. The card is usually provided by the local cable operator, typically for a nominal monthly fee.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984</span> Act of United States Congress

The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 was an act of Congress passed on October 30, 1984 to promote competition and deregulate the cable television industry. The act established a national policy for the regulation of cable television communications by federal, state, and local authorities. Conservative Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona wrote and supported the act, which amended the Communications Act of 1934 with the insertion of "Title VI—Cable Communications". After more than three years of debate, six provisions were enacted to represent the intricate compromise between cable operators and municipalities.

United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S. 803 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down Section 505 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which required that cable television operators completely scramble or block channels that are "primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming" or limit their transmission to the hours of 10 pm to 6 am.

Anti-siphoning laws and regulations are designed to prevent pay television broadcasters from buying monopoly rights to televise important and culturally significant events before free-to-air television has a chance to bid on them. The theory is that if such a monopoly was allowed, then those unable or unwilling to obtain access to the pay television service would be unable to view the important and culturally significant events. Generally the laws allow pay-TV to bid for such monopoly rights only if free-to-air television has declined to bid on them.

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.

Cable television first became available in the United States in 1948. By 1989, 53 million U.S. households received cable television subscriptions, with 60 percent of all U.S. households doing so in 1992. Most cable viewers in the U.S. reside in the suburbs and tend to be middle class; cable television is less common in low income, urban, and rural areas.

Retransmission consent is a provision of the 1992 United States Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act that requires cable operators and other multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) to obtain permission from commercial broadcasters before carrying their programming.

Multichannel television in the United States has been available since at least 1948. The United States is served by multichannel television through cable television systems, direct-broadcast satellite providers, and various other wireline video providers; among the largest television providers in the U.S. are YouTube TV, DirecTV, Altice USA, Charter Communications, Comcast, Dish Network, Verizon Communications, and Cox Communications. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 defines a multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) as "a person such as, but not limited to, a cable operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, or a television receive-only satellite program distributor, who makes available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming", where a channel is defined as a "signaling path provided by a cable television system."

A la carte pay television, also referred to as pick-and-pay, is a pricing model for pay television services in which customers subscribe to individual television channels. For subscription distribution services, a la carte pricing contrasts with the prevailing model of bundling, in which channels are grouped into packages that are offered on an all-or-nothing basis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Home Box Office, Inc.</span> American mass media company owned by Warner Bros. Discovery

Home Box Office, Inc. (HBO) is an American multinational media and entertainment company operating as a unit of Warner Bros. Discovery.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992</span> United States federal law

The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 is a United States federal law which required cable television systems to carry most local broadcast television channels and prohibited cable operators from charging local broadcasters to carry their signal.

<i>Satellite Broadcasting & Communications Assn v. FCC</i>

Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association v. FCC, 275 F.3d 337 was a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Congress required satellite television carriers to carry all requesting local broadcast stations in the market where the carrier voluntarily decides to carry one local station in order to, in part, preserve a multiplicity of local broadcast outlets for over-the-air-viewers who do not subscribe either to satellite or cable service.

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.

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.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994).
  2. 1 2 3 Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997).
  3. ↑ Parsons, Patrick R. (2008). Blue Skies: A History of Cable Television. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. pp. 480–542. ISBN   978-1-59213-287-4.
  4. ↑ Frieden, Rob (Spring 2006). "Analog and Digital Must-Carry Obligations of Cable and Satellite Television Operators in the United States". Media Law & Policy. 15 (2): 230–246 – via HeinOnline.
  5. 1 2 Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 819 F. Supp. 32 (D.D.C., 1993).
  6. ↑ Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974).
  7. ↑ Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).
  8. ↑ Turner Broadcasting v. FCC, 910 F. Supp. 734 (D.D.C., 1995).
  9. ↑ Valcke, Peggy (Spring 2006). "The Future of Must-Carry: From Must-Carry to a Concept of Universal Service in the Info-Communications Sector". Media Law & Policy. 15 (2): 247–265 – via HeinLone.
  10. ↑ Brown, Justin (Fall 2005). "Digital Must-Carry & the Case for Public Television". Cornell Journal of Law and Public Polic. 15 (1): 73–110 – via HeinOnline.
  11. ↑ Lung, Albert N. (November 2000). "Must-Carry Rules in the Transition to Digital Television: A Delicate Constitutional Balance". Cardozo Law Review. 22 (1): 151–222 – via HeinOnline.
  12. ↑ Laughner, Nissa; Brown, Justin (April 2006). "Cable Operators' Fifth Amendment Claims Applied to Digital Must-Carry". Federal Communications Law Journal. 58 (2): 281–320 – via HeinOnline.
  13. 1 2 Hazlett, Thomas W. (2000). "Digitizing 'Must-Carry' under Turner Broadcasting v. FCC". Supreme Court Economic Review. 8: 141–207.
  14. ↑ Lopatka, John E; Vita, Michael G. (1998). "The Must-Carry Decisions: Bad Law, Bad Economics". Supreme Court Economic Review. 6: 61–122 – via HeinOnline.
  15. ↑ Aaron, Harris J. (June 2000). "I Want My MTV: The Debate over Digital Must-Carry". Boston University Law Review. 80 (2): 885–906 – 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.