Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 48 (1996)

Page:   Index   Previous  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  Next

774

DENVER AREA ED. TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM, INC. v. FCC

Souter, J., concurring

ernment acts to suppress directly the dissemination of such speech, however, it may not rely solely on speculation and conjecture. See Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S., at 129-131.

Justice Breyer persuasively demonstrates that the Government has made no effort to identify the harm caused by permitting local franchising authorities to determine the quantum of so-called "indecent" speech that may be aired in their communities. Ante, at 763-766. Nor has the Government attempted to determine whether the intervention of the discretionary censorial authority of a private cable operator constitutes an appropriately limited means of addressing that harm. Ibid. Given the direct nature of the restriction on speech that § 10(c) imposes, the Government has failed to carry its burden of justification. Accordingly, I agree that the judgment of the Court of Appeals with respect to § 10(c) should be reversed.

Justice Souter, concurring.

Justice Kennedy's separate opinion stresses the worthy point that First Amendment values generally are well served by categorizing speech protection according to the respective characters of the expression, its context, and the restriction at issue. Reviewing speech regulations under fairly strict categorical rules keeps the starch in the standards for those moments when the daily politics cries loudest for limiting what may be said.1 Justice Kennedy sees no warrant in these cases for anything but a categorical and rule-based approach applying a fixed level of scrutiny, the strictest, to judge the content-based provisions of §§ 10(a), (b), and (c), and he accordingly faults the principal opinion

1 See, e. g., Blasi, The Pathological Perspective and the First Amendment, 85 Colum. L. Rev. 449, 474 (1985) (arguing that "courts . . . should place a premium on confining the range of discretion left to future decision-makers who will be called upon to make judgments when pathological pressures are most intense").

Page:   Index   Previous  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007