FCC v. Pacifica Foundation: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=Supreme Court of the United States |date=July 3, 1978 |subject=First Amendment |case_treatment=No |holding=FCC does have the authority to restrict...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|date=July 3, 1978 | |date=July 3, 1978 | ||
|subject=First Amendment | |subject=First Amendment | ||
|holding=FCC does have the authority to restrict the public broadcast of indecent words to late-night hours. | |holding=FCC does have the authority to restrict the public broadcast of indecent words to late-night hours. | ||
|reasons=The airwaves (not paid channels) belong to the public. | |reasons=The airwaves (not paid channels) belong to the public. | ||
Line 9: | Line 8: | ||
Protection of children from harmful speech is the reason for restricting indecent speech. | Protection of children from harmful speech is the reason for restricting indecent speech. | ||
|comments=This is also known as the '''George Carlin case'''. | |comments=This is also known as the '''George Carlin case'''. | ||
*[[Constitutional_Liberties#FCC_v_Pacifica_Foundation]] | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/438/726/ | |link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/438/726/ |
Latest revision as of 03:39, July 14, 2023
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation | |
Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
---|---|
Citation | |
Date decided | July 3, 1978 |
Holding
FCC does have the authority to restrict the public broadcast of indecent words to late-night hours.
Reasons
The airwaves (not paid channels) belong to the public.
Protection of children from harmful speech is the reason for restricting indecent speech.Comments
This is also known as the George Carlin case.