Turner broadcasting system v. federal communications commission is a case that was argued on October 7, 1996. This case went to the Supreme Court and it is about television companies to devote some of their channels to local broadcast television stations. Also this case was designed to prevent cable operators from using their economic power to determine of broadcasters. The argument was that all Americans that are unable to have cable. They could get free television programming. The cable companies had to dedicate some of their channels to local broadcast television stations.
The court held “must carry” to depend on the First Amendment examination under the case United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (Thomas L. Tedford). A content neutral regulation will be continuing for a longer period of time if it advances important governmental interests and stoppage of free speech and no burden; but for the most part speech is very necessary to further people’s interests. A long 18 months of finding information for the case, the District court granted summary judgment for the Government and the other appellees. Recorded evidence was found and it was very supportive for Congress’ judgement that carries provisions of further important governmental interests’. The competition that was imbalance between cable television and over the air broadcasters was endangering the broadcasters ability to have viewers. Congress …show more content…
He concluded part 1, 2, and 3. Also Justice Kennedy stated that the appropriate standard to evaluate the lawfulness of the must-carry provisions is the intermediate level of analysis is demanded. Which means to further a compelling government interest. The Supreme Court three governmental interests, the first was the preservation of free local broadcast television, the second was have a promotion of common publication of information from multiple sources, and last to have a promotion of civil
The court held “must carry” to depend on the First Amendment examination under the case United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (Thomas L. Tedford). A content neutral regulation will be continuing for a longer period of time if it advances important governmental interests and stoppage of free speech and no burden; but for the most part speech is very necessary to further people’s interests. A long 18 months of finding information for the case, the District court granted summary judgment for the Government and the other appellees. Recorded evidence was found and it was very supportive for Congress’ judgement that carries provisions of further important governmental interests’. The competition that was imbalance between cable television and over the air broadcasters was endangering the broadcasters ability to have viewers. Congress …show more content…
He concluded part 1, 2, and 3. Also Justice Kennedy stated that the appropriate standard to evaluate the lawfulness of the must-carry provisions is the intermediate level of analysis is demanded. Which means to further a compelling government interest. The Supreme Court three governmental interests, the first was the preservation of free local broadcast television, the second was have a promotion of common publication of information from multiple sources, and last to have a promotion of civil