Red Lion Broadcasting Co. Vs Ffc Case Study
Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC
1969 U.S. LEXIS 3267
VOTE: 8-0
OPINIONS: Justice White wrote the majority opinion; Justices Marshall, Warren, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, Black and Burger joined the opinion.
FACTS: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a fairness doctrine requiring all radio and television broadcasters to present public issues over the airwaves in a civil and balanced way. The fairness doctrine is composed of two main requirements related to personal attacks in the context of public issue debates and political editorializing. The political editorializing rule requires that when a broadcaster endorses or opposes a political candidate, they must notify the opposed candidate and give them reasonable opportunity
to reply to the critical statements.
Red Lion Broadcasting challenged the way the fairness doctrine is applied. The FCC declared that the Red Lion Broadcasting Co. failed to follow the fairness doctrine when it aired a program containing a personal attack on Fred J. Cook. Cook wrote a politically controversial book and was attacked by conservative evangelist Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast that aired on WGCB in Red Lion, Pennsylvania.
The FCC ordered Red Lion Broadcasting Co. to send a transcript of the broadcast to Cook and provide time to reply. The Court of Appeals initially upheld the FCC’s position. Due to the challenges brought against the FCC, they created a rulemaking proceeding to make the personal attack aspect of the fairness doctrine more specific and easier to enforce.
DECISION: In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the fairness doctrine was consistent with the First Amendment.
RATIONALE: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the FCC’s fairness doctrine regulations enhanced the freedoms of speech protected under the First Amendment instead of infringing upon them. Since the FCC is under governmental control, it has the ability to control how broadcasters use frequencies and can exclude content how they see fit.
The FCC’s requirements with respect to the regulation of personal attacks made in public debates were altered. The FCC made it so the subject of the attack would be provided with a tap, transcript, or broadcast summary in addition be being able to respond without having to prove an inability to pay for the airtime. These change of requirements insured that there is a balance and open discussion of argued issues. There was another requirement that stated political stories had to be presented from both sides of the debate to help contribute to the balanced discussion of public concern.
IMPORTANCE: The Court ruled in favor of the FCC, which means that broadcasters have to abide by the fairness doctrine. The ruling also made it clear that the fairness doctrine does not infringe on the First Amendment rights of broadcasters. The First Amendment is important for public broadcasting but it is the guaranteed right of the viewing and listening public rather then the right of the broadcasters.
In regards to the scarcity of broadcast frequencies and the Government's role in allocating those frequencies for expression of broadcasters’ views, the Court holds that the regulations are authorized by statute and are constitutional. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in Red Lion and is reversed in RTNDA [US v. Radio Television News Directors Association]. Through the TRNDA case, the Court held that the fairness doctrine and its components are constitutional.
1969 U.S. LEXIS 3267
VOTE: 8-0
OPINIONS: Justice White wrote the majority opinion; Justices Marshall, Warren, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, Black and Burger joined the opinion.
FACTS: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a fairness doctrine requiring all radio and television broadcasters to present public issues over the airwaves in a civil and balanced way. The fairness doctrine is composed of two main requirements related to personal attacks in the context of public issue debates and political editorializing. The political editorializing rule requires that when a broadcaster endorses or opposes a political candidate, they must notify the opposed candidate and give them reasonable opportunity
to reply to the critical statements.
Red Lion Broadcasting challenged the way the fairness doctrine is applied. The FCC declared that the Red Lion Broadcasting Co. failed to follow the fairness doctrine when it aired a program containing a personal attack on Fred J. Cook. Cook wrote a politically controversial book and was attacked by conservative evangelist Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast that aired on WGCB in Red Lion, Pennsylvania.
The FCC ordered Red Lion Broadcasting Co. to send a transcript of the broadcast to Cook and provide time to reply. The Court of Appeals initially upheld the FCC’s position. Due to the challenges brought against the FCC, they created a rulemaking proceeding to make the personal attack aspect of the fairness doctrine more specific and easier to enforce.
DECISION: In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the fairness doctrine was consistent with the First Amendment.
RATIONALE: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the FCC’s fairness doctrine regulations enhanced the freedoms of speech protected under the First Amendment instead of infringing upon them. Since the FCC is under governmental control, it has the ability to control how broadcasters use frequencies and can exclude content how they see fit.
The FCC’s requirements with respect to the regulation of personal attacks made in public debates were altered. The FCC made it so the subject of the attack would be provided with a tap, transcript, or broadcast summary in addition be being able to respond without having to prove an inability to pay for the airtime. These change of requirements insured that there is a balance and open discussion of argued issues. There was another requirement that stated political stories had to be presented from both sides of the debate to help contribute to the balanced discussion of public concern.
IMPORTANCE: The Court ruled in favor of the FCC, which means that broadcasters have to abide by the fairness doctrine. The ruling also made it clear that the fairness doctrine does not infringe on the First Amendment rights of broadcasters. The First Amendment is important for public broadcasting but it is the guaranteed right of the viewing and listening public rather then the right of the broadcasters.
In regards to the scarcity of broadcast frequencies and the Government's role in allocating those frequencies for expression of broadcasters’ views, the Court holds that the regulations are authorized by statute and are constitutional. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in Red Lion and is reversed in RTNDA [US v. Radio Television News Directors Association]. Through the TRNDA case, the Court held that the fairness doctrine and its components are constitutional.