Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 98 (1996)

Page:   Index   Previous  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  Next

824

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

Opinion of Thomas, J.

The First Amendment challenge, if one is to be made, must come from the party whose constitutionally protected freedom of speech has been burdened. Viewing the federal access requirements as a whole, it is the cable operator, not the access programmer,8 whose speech rights have been infringed. Consequently, it is the operator, and not the programmer, whose speech has arguably been infringed by these provisions. If Congress passed a law forcing bookstores to sell all books published on the subject of congressional politics, we would undoubtedly entertain a claim by bookstores that this law violated the First Amendment principles established in Tornillo and Pacific Gas. But I doubt that we would similarly find merit in a claim by publishers of gardening books that the law violated their First Amendment rights. If that is so, then petitioners in these cases cannot reasonably assert that the Court should strictly scrutinize the provisions at issue in a way that maximizes their ability to speak over leased and public access channels and, by necessity, minimizes the operators' discretion.

B

It makes no difference that the leased access restrictions may take the form of common carrier obligations. See Midwest Video II, 440 U. S., at 701; see also Brief for Federal Respondents 23. But see 47 U. S. C. § 541(c) ("Any cable system shall not be subject to regulation as a common carrier or utility by reason of providing any cable service"). That the leased access provisions may be described in common carrier terms does not demonstrate that access programmers

channels, ibid., does not diminish the underlying right to do so, even if the operator's forbearance is viewed as a contractual quid pro quo for the local franchise.

8 Turner recognized that the must-carry rules burden programmers who must compete for space on fewer channels. 512 U. S., at 636-637. Leased access requirements may also similarly burden programmers who compete for space on nonaccess channels.

Page:   Index   Previous  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007