Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In addition to asserting First Amendment protection, Fox News also cited the landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision New York Times Co. v. Sullivan that found a public figure seeking to prove defamation must demonstrate that a publisher acted with actual malice: that they knew what they published was false or recklessly disregarded whether it ...
Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (2012), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's scheme for regulating speech is unconstitutionally vague.
Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld regulations of the Federal Communications Commission that ban "fleeting expletives" on television broadcasts, finding they were not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. [1]
Fox Television Stations, Inc. refers to two related Supreme Court cases: Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2009) , upholding regulations of the Federal Communications Commission that ban "fleeting expletives" on television broadcasts, finding they were not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Decisions of the United States Supreme Court [ edit ] In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC , 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld, by a vote of 8–0, the constitutionality of the fairness doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution .
The Supreme Court primarily addressed the matter of whether government regulation of broadcasting content comports with the free speech rights of broadcast operators under the First Amendment. [7] The high court ruled 5–4 in favor of the FCC, holding that the Carlin routine was "indecent but not obscene". Therefore, the Commission could not ...
Trump's team asked the Supreme Court to reject the expedited timeline and allow the appeals court to consider the case first. [29] [30] On December 22, the Supreme Court denied the special counsel's request, leaving the case to the appeals court. [31] On January 9, 2024, the D.C. Court of Appeals heard arguments in the immunity dispute.