Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided June 28, 1996No. 95-124Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Thomas

I agree with the principal opinion’s conclusion that § 10(a) is constitutionally permissible, but I disagree with its conclusion that §§ 10(b) and (c) violate the First Amendment. For many years, we have failed to articulate how, and to what extent, the First Amendment protects cable operators, programmers, and viewers from state and federal regulation. I think it is time we did so, and I cannot go along with Justice Breyer’s assiduous attempts to avoid addressing that issue openly.

I

The text of the First Amendment makes no distinctions among print, broadcast, and cable media, but we have done…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Ward v. Rock Against RacismSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Haguer v. Committee for Industrial OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1939

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API