Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium - Decision, Significance, Justice Breyer's Contextual Balancing Approach, Justice Kennedy's Categorical Approach

cable television petitioner court

Petitioner

Denver Area Educational Consortium, et al.

Respondent

Federal Communications Commission, et al.

Petitioner's Claim

That various regulations implementing the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, which regulated indecent and obscene programming on cable television, violated the free speech rights of cable access programmers and cable television viewers under the First Amendment.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

I. Michael Greenberger

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Lawrence G. Wallace

Justices for the Court

Stephen Breyer (writing for the Court), Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens

Justices Dissenting

William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

28 June 1996

Related Cases

Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949).
Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978).
Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 492 U.S. 115 (1989).
Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994).
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 512 U.S. 844 (1997).

Additional Topics

Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium - Significance

The plurality opinion suggests a sweeping change in how First Amendment claims are analyzed by the Supreme Court. The opinion, if adopted in other contexts, has the potential to revolutionize how the Court views First Amendment problems arising in areas of new technology. However, for the short-term, the Court's decision seems to be limited to regulations of cable television, and is significant in…

Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium - Justice Breyer's Contextual Balancing Approach

Justice Breyer, who was joined in his approach by Justices Stevens, Souter, and O'Connor, refused to apply any test previously formulated in other areas of the media under the First Amendment. Breyer's approach rejected the attempt of the other justices to create categories of media for First Amendment cases. He reasoned that such a categorical approach "import[s] law developed in very different c…

Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium - Justice Kennedy's Categorical Approach

In contrast to the approach taken by Justice Breyer, Justice Kennedy, who wrote an opinion for himself and Justice Ginsburg, favored a "categorical" approach. He reasoned that "[w]hen confronted with a threat to free speech in an emerging technology, [the Court] ought to have the discipline to analyze the case by reference to existing First Amendment principles." In Justice Kennedy's view, cable t…

Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium - Justice Thomas's Categorical Approach

Justice Thomas, who was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia, also favored a categorical approach similar to that of Justice Kennedy. Criticizing Justice Breyer's "assiduous attempts to avoid addressing" the issue of "how and to what extent the First Amendment protects cable operators, programmers, and viewers from state and federal regulation," Justice Thomas concluded that cable …

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.