http://www.oyez.org/tags/rehnquist_freedom_of_the_press/ U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us http://www.oyez.org/images/oyezfeed.jpg U.S. Supreme Court Audio Recordings, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) Wed, 08 Oct 1997 12:00:00 -0500 <p>During the 1992 race for Arkansas' Third Congressional District, the Arkansas Educational Television Commission (AETC) -- a state-owned public television broadcaster -- sponsored a debate between the major party candidates. Running as an independent candidate with little popular support, Ralph Forbes sought to participate in the debate but was denied permission. After unsuccessfully challenging AETC's refusal in district court, Forbes appealed and won a reversal. AETC then appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.</p> <p>During the 1992 race for Arkansas' Third Congressional District, the Arkansas Educational Television Commission (AETC) -- a state-owned public television broadcaster -- sponsored a debate between the major party candidates. Running as an independent candidate with little popular support, Ralph Forbes sought to participate in the debate but was denied permission. After unsuccessfully challenging AETC's refusal in district court, Forbes appealed and won a reversal. AETC then appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.</p><br/><br/><p>Is the exclusion of a ballot-qualified candidate from a debate sponsored by a state-owned public television broadcaster a violation of the candidate's First Amendment right to freedom of speech?</p> 96-779_19971008-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_96_779/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 21 Feb 1996 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Sections 10(a) and 10(c) of the 1992 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act (the Act) empower leased access channel cable operators to control programming that they believe is indecent and obscene. Section 10(b) of the Act requires public access channel cable operators to restrict "patently offensive" programming to a single channel, access to which must be restricted to those subscribers who submit written requests. Petitioners, television access programmers and cable television viewers, filed suit alleging that the Act's empowerments and restrictions violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This case was consolidated with Alliance for Community Media v. FCC.</p> <p>Sections 10(a) and 10(c) of the 1992 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act (the Act) empower leased access channel cable operators to control programming that they believe is indecent and obscene. Section 10(b) of the Act requires public access channel cable operators to restrict "patently offensive" programming to a single channel, access to which must be restricted to those subscribers who submit written requests. Petitioners, television access programmers and cable television viewers, filed suit alleging that the Act's empowerments and restrictions violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This case was consolidated with Alliance for Community Media v. FCC.</p><br/><br/><p>Do the Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act's empowerments and restrictions violate the petitioner's First Amendment right to freedom of speech?</p> 95-124_19960221-argument-part01 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_95_124/argument/ I. Michael Greenberger supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 21 Feb 1996 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued.<br/><br/>Oral Argument, continued. 95-124_19960221-argument-part02 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_95_124/argument/ Lawrence G. Wallace supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 13 Oct 1987 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The Spectrum, the school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students. In May 1983, Robert E. Reynolds, the school principal, received the pages proofs for the May 13 issue. Reynolds found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be withheld from publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to court.</p> <p>The Spectrum, the school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students. In May 1983, Robert E. Reynolds, the school principal, received the pages proofs for the May 13 issue. Reynolds found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be withheld from publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to court.</p><br/><br/><p>Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the First Amendment?</p> 86-836_19871013-argument-part01 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_836/argument/ Robert P. Baine Jr. supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 13 Oct 1987 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued.<br/><br/>Oral Argument, continued. 86-836_19871013-argument-part02 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_836/argument/ Leslie D. Edwards supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 13 Oct 1987 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued.<br/><br/>Oral Argument, continued. 86-836_19871013-argument-part03 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_836/argument/ Robert P. Baine Jr. supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 02 Dec 1987 12:00:00 -0500 <p>A lead story in the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement, modeled after an actual ad campaign, claiming that Falwell, a Fundamentalist minister and political leader, had a drunken incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse. Falwell sued to recover damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Falwell won a jury verdict on the emotional distress claim and was awarded a total of $150,000 in damages. Hustler Magazine appealed.</p> <p>A lead story in the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement, modeled after an actual ad campaign, claiming that Falwell, a Fundamentalist minister and political leader, had a drunken incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse. Falwell sued to recover damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Falwell won a jury verdict on the emotional distress claim and was awarded a total of $150,000 in damages. Hustler Magazine appealed.</p><br/><br/><p>Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection extend to the making of patently offensive statements about public figures, resulting perhaps in their suffering emotional distress?</p> 86-1278_19871202-argument-part01 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1278/argument/ Alan L. Isaacman supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 02 Dec 1987 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued.<br/><br/>Oral Argument, continued. 86-1278_19871202-argument-part02 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1278/argument/ Norman Roy Grutman supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 19 Mar 1997 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Several litigants challenged the constitutionality of two provisions in the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Intended to protect minors from unsuitable internet material, the Act criminalized the intentional transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages as well as the transmission of information which depicts or describes "sexual or excretory activities or organs" in a manner deemed "offensive" by community standards. After being enjoined by a District Court from enforcing the above provisions, except for the one concerning obscenity and its inherent protection against child pornography, Attorney General Janet Reno appealed directly to the Supreme Court as provided for by the Act's special review provisions.</p> <p>Several litigants challenged the constitutionality of two provisions in the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Intended to protect minors from unsuitable internet material, the Act criminalized the intentional transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages as well as the transmission of information which depicts or describes "sexual or excretory activities or organs" in a manner deemed "offensive" by community standards. After being enjoined by a District Court from enforcing the above provisions, except for the one concerning obscenity and its inherent protection against child pornography, Attorney General Janet Reno appealed directly to the Supreme Court as provided for by the Act's special review provisions.</p><br/><br/><p>Did certain provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violate the First and Fifth Amendments by being overly broad and vague in their definitions of the types of internet communications which they criminalized?</p> 96-511_19970319-argument-part01 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_511/argument/ Seth P. Waxman supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 19 Mar 1997 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued.<br/><br/>Oral Argument, continued. 96-511_19970319-argument-part02 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_511/argument/ Bruce J. Ennis supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 19 Mar 1997 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued.<br/><br/>Oral Argument, continued. 96-511_19970319-argument-part03 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_511/argument/ Seth P. Waxman supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist