First Amendment Issues
Broadcast media present significant opportunities to educate people about important issues of the day. In fact, broadcasters are obligated under the law to do so.
Media Access Project works to ensure that broadcasters and cable operators advance the democratic process. There are many aspects of this fight that have captured national attention, such as proposals for free airtime for political candidates, sponsorship identification, or the debate over the funding of public TV. Other aspects may be less well-known, but are no less important.
The Public’s First Amendment Right to Hear was established in the Supreme Court decision in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission in 1969.
In writing the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, Justice Byron White declared:
“[T]he people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. … It is the right of the viewers and listeners … which is paramount.”
In this landmark case, the Court found that the First Amendment includes a right of the people to receive information, in addition to the better-known right of speakers to speak. The most common formulation of this right, called “diversity,” is the notion that people should be free to choose among many sources of information, viewpoints, and ideas.
Another important application of this right to receive information is the requirement that broadcasters program in a way that serves the “public interest.” This is why many stations have public service announcements, produce public affairs shows, or carry political debates.
Recent News:
- Roberts Court Extends Line of Permissive First Amendment Rulings In Video Game Case
- Supreme Court to review FCC role as TV’s curse-words and nudity police
- Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban On Sale Of Violent Video Games To Minors
- FCC, PTC Praise High Court for Taking Profanity Case Argued it was necessary if government wants to regulate indecent content
- MAP Comments On Supreme Court Action Agreeing To Rule On Broadcast Indecency


