Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Federal Communications Commission v. 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.
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 ...
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]
On remand, the district court, after the Supreme Court's ruling, dismissed Twentieth Century Fox's Lanham Act claims as well as analogous California state law unfair competition claims. [3] The only remaining issue was whether the plaintiffs had a copyright in the underlying work, Eisenhower's book Crusade in Europe.
Owens' decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court by all except for Gray. Supreme Court Chief Justice Kate M. Fox and her fellow justices wrote in the Friday decision that the advocacy ...
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. refers to two related Supreme Court cases: FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 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
The ruling: In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court allowed Medicare-participating hospitals in Idaho to perform emergency abortions when a woman's health is at risk, overriding the state's near-total ...
The Justices’ decision to allow a trial judge’s order resuming spending to proceed is merely the first procedural skirmish in a larger constitutional battle that will return to the Court.