Today in Supreme Court History: November 27, 1964

11/27/1964: WGCB carried a 15-minute broadcast by the Reverend Billy James Hargis as part of the "Christian Crusade" series. This broadcast gave rise to Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969).

The Warren Court (1969)

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction Works of San Francisco, 199 U.S. 306 (decided November 27, 1905): San Francisco validly under the California Constitution gave corporation exclusive right to dispose of the city’s garbage; dismisses Fourteenth Amendment argument made by citizens and competing corporation (the opinion has long lists of types of garbage, offal, excrement, animal remains; don’t read it while eating)

Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (decided November 27, 2001): right to sue public officers for Constitutional violations (Bivens) does not extend to right to sue private corporations providing federal governmental functions (here, privately run prison that did not provide disability accommodations for federal prisoner) (this case greatly curtailed “state actor” liability and was a huge boon to the “private prison” industry; 5 – 4 decision)

Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (decided November 27, 1979): federal statute prohibiting use of interstate commerce to commit “bribery” included bribery of private individuals (here, paying for stolen geological information useful for oil drilling)

[Syd Henderson]

The first decision was a precipitating cause of the San Francisco earthquake.

[SRG2]

Correctional Services Corp conservative wing 5, liberal wing 4.

[SMP0328]

If SCOTUS ever gets a chance to revisit Red Lion, it should overrule that decision. Free Speech caselaw is much more expansive than it was in 1969 and the primary reason for upholding the Fairness Doctrine was the limited frequencies for radio broadcasters to use. With satellite radio and the Internet, that reason is obsolete.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not disagreeing with you. But the Fairness Doctrine forced us, at least some of the time, to listen to views we didn’t agree with. Nowadays we can stay ensconced in our echo chambers.

[defaultdotxbe]

I'm not sure that is the case, sure it forced broadcasters to air programming with opposing viewpoints, but it didn't force anyone to tune in or actually pay attention to the viewpoints they didn't agree with. The quick rise of conservative talk radio to dominance after the Fairness Doctrine was rescinded would point to stations only airing opposing views because they were required to, not because people were actually listening.

We see the opposite side of the spectrum in television, with CNN, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, MSNBC, and BBC enjoying broad liberal-leaning audiences, with conservative audiences being largely relegated to Fox News.

To me this simply shows a difference in how liberals and conservatives choose to consume their media, so there isn't much of a market for liberal talk radio, or conservative television (even Fox News is mostly conservative radio hosts doing little more than a TV version of their radio programs)

[Krayt]

Well that's why it was viewed as a way to punch conservative ( -show-playing) radio stations in the dollar signs. One hot, profitable 3 hour show, followed by a dog of a 3 hour liberal show instead of a lesser but still profitable Rush-wannabee. Makes the station think twice, which may have been the real goal.

No less a professional comedian than Al Franken tried to create counter-programming and failed. Rachel Maddow might pull it off, if anyone still cared about radio. All viewpoints have their own channels on Sat Radio nowadays anyway. Though still technically limited in airwaves, it's functionally unlimited due to expansion and much better tech, almost like fiber optic Internet.

[defaultdotxbe]

The Fairness Doctrine would have to be reinstated first, but if it were I think this would be a quick SCOTUS decision to knock it down once and for all.

[David Nieporent]

One might think so, but the mental gymnastics required to strike down the Fairness Doctrine while upholding the anti-moderation social media laws now favored by MAGA conservatives would be quite tough.

[defaultdotxbe]

Since you presuppose the court will uphold the antimoderation laws simply because MAGA conservatives liking them I don't know why wouldn't assume they will strike down Fairness Doctrine simply because MAGA conservatives dislike it.

Personally I don't think the antimoderation laws will be upheld, which would negate the need for any mental gymnastics should Fairness Doctrine make a comeback.

[Krayt]

Forcing social media to transmit stuff they don’t want to doesn’t cut into their profits the same way as demanding a radio station broadcast a three hour block of unpopular show does.

Secondly, social media companies do have a financial incentive to censor, an accurate word, because the government is threatening section 230 if they don’t, which will crush their business model (touted as why it was being done!) which, in the case of the trillion dollar club, could be hundreds of billions in lost stock valuation.

The correct answer that reconciles them is none of it should be done, not fairness doctrine, and not section 230 sword of Damoclesing.

This is also the poster child for “regulation by raised eyebrow”, where FTC radio licensing is delayed or denied depending on administration-friendly policies.

I recall two papers in my city merging. They were accused of censoring political cartoons, as their joint operating agreement needed approval from the government because, you know.

Say it, you know.

Because it’s vitally important for The People to have two news sources. Which is certainly true, but has nothing to do with wielding the power other than a useful cover story for useful idiots.

[David Nieporent]

.

Forcing social media to transmit stuff they don’t want to doesn’t cut into their profits the same way as demanding a radio station broadcast a three hour block of unpopular show does.

This is of course both wrong and irrelevant, since the Fairness Doctrine did not demand any length of time broadcasting of unpopular shows.

And ask Elon about whether transmitting stuff in ways that social media companies don’t want cuts into his profits. (He filed a whole lawsuit claiming that it does!)

Secondly, social media companies do have a financial incentive to censor, an accurate word, because the government is threatening section 230 if they don’t, which will crush their business model (touted as why it was being done!) which, in the case of the trillion dollar club, could be hundreds of billions in lost stock valuation.

This is a fucking imaginary thing that never happened. Please stop with this absurd gibberish. And it directly contradicts the first claim you made!