Cite as: 531 U. S. 533 (2001)
Scalia, J., dissenting
use an existing medium of expression and to control it . . . in ways which distort its usual functioning," ante, at 543. This is wrong on both the facts and the law. It is wrong on the law because there is utterly no precedent for the novel and facially implausible proposition that the First Amendment has anything to do with government funding that—though it does not actually abridge anyone's speech—"distorts an existing medium of expression." None of the three cases cited by the Court mentions such an odd principle. In Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., the point critical to the Court's analysis was not, as the Court would have it, that it is part of the "usual functioning" of student newspapers to "expres[s] many different points of view," ante, at 543 (it surely is not), but rather that the spending program itself had been created "to encourage a diversity of views from private speakers," 515 U. S., at 834. What could not be distorted was the public forum that the spending program had created. As for Arkansas Ed. Television Comm'n v. Forbes, 523 U. S. 666 (1998), that case discussed the nature of television broadcasting, not to determine whether government regulation would alter its "usual functioning" and thus violate the First Amendment (no government regulation was even at issue in the case), but rather to determine whether state-owned television is a "public forum" under our First Amendment jurisprudence. Id., at 673-674. And finally, the passage the Court cites from FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U. S. 364, 396-397 (1984), says nothing whatever about "using the forum [of public radio] in an unconventional way to suppress speech inherent in the nature of the medium," ante, at 543. It discusses why the Govern-ment's asserted interest in "preventing [public radio] stations from becoming a privileged outlet for the political and ideological opinions of station owners and managers," 468 U. S., at 396 (internal quotation marks omitted), was insubstantial and thus could not justify the statute's restriction on editorializing. Even worse for the Court, after invalidat-
555
Page: Index Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007