Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC

Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), is the first of two United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the must-carry rules imposed on cable television companies. Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission (II), 520 U.S. 180 (1997) was the second. Turner I established that cable television companies were indeed First Amendment speakers but didn't decide whether the federal regulation of their speech infringed upon their speech rights. In Turner II the court decided that the must-carry provisions were constitutional.

Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 12, 1994 Decided June 27, 1994
Full case name	Turner Broadcasting System, Incorporated, et al., Appellants v. Federal Communications Commission, et al.
Citations	512 U.S. 622 (more) 114 S. Ct. 2445; 129 L. Ed. 2d 497; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 4831; 62 U.S.L.W. 4647; 75 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 609; 22 Media L. Rep. 1865; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4831; 94 Daily Journal DAR 8894; 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 375
Case history
Prior	Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 819 F. Supp. 32 (D.D.C. 1993); probable jurisdiction noted, 509 U.S. 952 (1993).
Subsequent	Rehearing denied, 512 U.S. 1278 (1994); on remand, 910 F. Supp. 734 (D.D.C. 1995); affirmed, 520 U.S. 180 (1997).
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Harry Blackmun · John P. Stevens Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy · David Souter Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Case opinions
Majority	Kennedy, joined by unanimous (Part I); Rehnquist, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg (Parts II–A and II–B); Rehnquist, Blackmun, Stevens, Souter (Parts II–C, II–D, and III–A)
Concurrence	Kennedy (Part III–B), joined by Rehnquist, Blackmun, Souter
Concurrence	Blackmun
Concurrence	Stevens (in part)
Concur/dissent	O'Connor, joined by Scalia, Ginsburg; Thomas (Parts I and III)
Concur/dissent	Ginsburg

Under the Miami Herald v. Tornillo case, it was unconstitutional to force a newspaper to run a story the editors would not have included absent a government statute because it was compelled speech which could not pass the strict scrutiny of a compelling state interest being achieved with the least restrictive means necessary to achieve the state interest. However, under the rule of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC the High Court held that a federal agency could regulate broadcast stations (TV and radio) with far greater discretion. In order for federal agency regulation of broadcast media to pass constitutional muster, it need only serve an important state interest and need not narrowly tailor its regulation to the least restrictive means.