第一修正案下有线电视监管的未来:最高法院对1992年有线电视消费者保护和竞争法第10(a)条的处理

Q3 Social Sciences Interactive Entertainment Law Review Pub Date : 1997-01-01 DOI:10.4135/9781604265774.n220
J. Kaiser
{"title":"第一修正案下有线电视监管的未来:最高法院对1992年有线电视消费者保护和竞争法第10(a)条的处理","authors":"J. Kaiser","doi":"10.4135/9781604265774.n220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court's plurality opinion in Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC' will likely change the way in which courts analyze speech restrictions on cable television for First Amendment purposes. 2 The Denver plurality formulated and utilized an ad hoc standard to review the speech restrictions at issue. However, the plurality's standard departs substantially from firmly-established First Amendment precedent and was based upon an analytical approach that had previously been applied only to broadcast communications. Specifically, the plurality's analysis failed to take into consideration the fundamental differences between cable","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Future of Cable Regulation Under the First Amendment: The Supreme Court's Treatment of Section 10(a) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992\",\"authors\":\"J. Kaiser\",\"doi\":\"10.4135/9781604265774.n220\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Supreme Court's plurality opinion in Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC' will likely change the way in which courts analyze speech restrictions on cable television for First Amendment purposes. 2 The Denver plurality formulated and utilized an ad hoc standard to review the speech restrictions at issue. However, the plurality's standard departs substantially from firmly-established First Amendment precedent and was based upon an analytical approach that had previously been applied only to broadcast communications. Specifically, the plurality's analysis failed to take into consideration the fundamental differences between cable\",\"PeriodicalId\":36418,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interactive Entertainment Law Review\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interactive Entertainment Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4135/9781604265774.n220\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4135/9781604265774.n220","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最高法院在丹佛地区教育电信联盟诉联邦通信委员会案中的多数意见可能会改变法院根据第一修正案分析有线电视言论限制的方式。丹佛多数人制定并使用了一个特别标准来审查有争议的言论限制。然而,多数意见的标准在很大程度上背离了第一修正案中确立的先例,而是基于一种分析方法,而这种方法以前只适用于广播通信。具体来说,多数人的分析没有考虑到电缆之间的根本区别
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Future of Cable Regulation Under the First Amendment: The Supreme Court's Treatment of Section 10(a) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992
The Supreme Court's plurality opinion in Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC' will likely change the way in which courts analyze speech restrictions on cable television for First Amendment purposes. 2 The Denver plurality formulated and utilized an ad hoc standard to review the speech restrictions at issue. However, the plurality's standard departs substantially from firmly-established First Amendment precedent and was based upon an analytical approach that had previously been applied only to broadcast communications. Specifically, the plurality's analysis failed to take into consideration the fundamental differences between cable
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Artificial Intelligence and evolving issues under US copyright and patent law EULAs: Flexible tools of governance or instruments of authoritarianism? Are streaming rights the new broadcasting rights of the 21st century? A comparative review on the specific case of esport competitions Mr. Feige, I don’t feel so good … Copyright ownership, creators’ rights, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe Dark clouds gather – The development of cloud gaming, and competition agencies’ efforts to enable it on mobile app stores
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1