Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Taxation of cable television: First Amendment limitations

Article Abstract:

Applying the intermediate scrutiny test for free speech restrictions as set forth in Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC to state and local taxation of cable television operators would address the concerns that such taxation could abridge First Amendment rights. The US Supreme Court had not considered the public's First Amendment interest in access to the airwaves in Leathers v. Medlock. The Court ruled in Turner that the public's free speech concerns warranted heightened scrutiny of differential taxation of various forms of media, including cable television.

Publisher: Harvard Law Review Association
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1995
Taxation, Laws, regulations and rules, Cable television, Commercial speech doctrine, Mass media

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Deference to legislative fact determinations in First Amendment cases after Turner Broadcasting

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court's decisions in the Turner Broadcasting System v. United States cases are detrimental to free expression with the approaches adopted regarding judicial deference to legislative fact determinations. The inadequate and inappropriate approaches are either piecemeal or imported from other areas of law. The 1st Amendment can better be protected by an approach which acknowledges legislative competence while subjecting legislative fact determinations to judicial review based upon the record in each case.

Publisher: Harvard Law Review Association
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1998
Judicial review, Law and fact, Judicial restraint

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


First Amendment - bias-motivated crimes - court strikes down hate crimes penalty enhancer statute

Article Abstract:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court in State v Mitchell applied R.A.V. v City of St Paul in striking down the state penalty enhancement statute for hate crimes. However, the court's application of the First Amendment to criminal motive was inappropriate. The court also misapplied R.A.V.'s holding, which concerned restrictions on speech based on content. The hate crimes statute increased penalties for otherwise punishable crimes and clearly fell within the exceptions provided by the US Supreme Court in the R.A.V. decision.

Publisher: Harvard Law Review Association
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1993
Hate crimes

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Cases, Freedom of speech, Case Note
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Using arbitration to avoid litigation. Waiver of rights under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: implications of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990
  • Abstracts: Mediation: are the proceedings really confidential? Protective orders and confidentiality agreements: a drafter's guide
  • Abstracts: New laws address U.K. environmental damage: pending legislation is designed to heighten protection and identify those responsible for pollution
  • Abstracts: The case for repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act. Collective bargaining in professional sports: baseball, football, basketball, and hockey
  • Abstracts: While the property reform legislation is stalled in Congress, state as well as federal judges are deciding when wetland regulation is tantamount to a taking
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.