Home Box Office v. Federal Communications Commission case brief
summary
567 F.2d 9 (1977)
CASE FACTS
In 15 consolidated cases, petitioners challenged various parts of four orders of Federal Communications Commission which, taken together, regulated and limited program fare "cablecasters" and "subscription broadcast television stations" that may have been offered to public for a fee set on a per-program or per-channel basis.
DISCUSSION
OUTCOME
The court upheld the challenged orders insofar as they related to subscription broadcast television and vacated all other orders as being arbitrary, capricious, and unauthorized by law.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
567 F.2d 9 (1977)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioners, in 15 consolidated cases,
sought review of orders of the Federal Communications Commission,
alleging that certain regulations violated the First
Amendment right to free expression.CASE FACTS
In 15 consolidated cases, petitioners challenged various parts of four orders of Federal Communications Commission which, taken together, regulated and limited program fare "cablecasters" and "subscription broadcast television stations" that may have been offered to public for a fee set on a per-program or per-channel basis.
DISCUSSION
- The court upheld the challenged orders insofar as they related to subscription broadcast television and vacated the orders as arbitrary, capricious, and unauthorized by law in all other respects.
- The court held that regulations evincing a governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression could have been upheld as valid if such regulations
- (1) furthered an important or substantial governmental interest and
- (2) if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms was no greater than was essential to the furtherance of that interest.
- In the present case, the court held that the regulations violated the First Amendment because they did not serve any important or substantial interest.
OUTCOME
The court upheld the challenged orders insofar as they related to subscription broadcast television and vacated all other orders as being arbitrary, capricious, and unauthorized by law.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment