Law Commons^™

The First Amendment And Fcc Rule Making Under The 1992 Cable Act, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article explores the First Amendment implications of the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) regulations issued under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 19921 (1992 Cable Act). The 1992 Cable Act imposes numerous requirements that are beyond the scope of this Article. This Article analyzes only the FCC's exercise of rule making discretion under the 1992 Cable Act.

Additionally, it must be remembered that an under-staffed FCC was given an enormous amount of work to do within fixed time limits. Therefore, it must be expected that the rulemaking would be vulnerable to second-guessing. Nonetheless, whenever a governmental entity …

An Antitrust Analysis Of Sports League Contracts With Cable Networks, Stephen F. Ross

Journal Articles

This Article discusses the proper antitrust treatment of package sales to cable. Part I considers whether the antitrust laws apply at all to such sales; it concludes that section one of the Sherman Act does apply and that neither the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 not baseball's historic exemption from the antitrust laws prevents antitrust scrutiny of these contracts. Part II explains why cable package sales should be analyzed under a rule of reason test focused on the effect of a sale on fan viewership. Finally, Part III responds to several possible objections to the rule of reason standard proposed …

Cable Television's New Legal Universe: Early Judicial Response To The Cable Act, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

On October 29, 1984, a new era began in the relationship between law and cable television. On that day, the first major law regulation cable television, the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,was signed into law.

Early judicial attempts to interpret the Cable Act revealed the difficulties judges had with understanding the new legal regimen. A common thread running through these varied cases, if any, was the courts' apparent lack of appreciation of the Act's complexity. Many, though not all, decisions appear to misread congressional language and misinterpret congressional intent. The first part of this Article will discuss this problem …

The First Amendment And The Cable Television Operator: An Unprotective Shield Against Public Access Requirements, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

This article focuses on the question of whether state-imposed public access requirements violate the First Amendment rights of the cable television operator. The author suggests that the appropriate analysis asks whether the law abridges expression the First Amendment was meant to protect. In other words, do cable access requirements abridge speech safeguarded by the First Amendment? The article demonstrates that such requirements do not hinder, but in fact further, fundamental First Amendment interests. Finally, the article shows that access requirements fulfill the standards of the constitutional tests for each classification into which they could be placed.