Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> Jurisdynamics
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Academic
: JurisdynamicsLiberating Red Lion from the Glass Menagerie of Free Speech Jurisprudence
By Jim Chen
![]() | Liberating Red Lion from the Glass Menagerie of Free Speech Jurisprudence |
![]() | |
Following the established protocol for loading old articles onto SSRN, I've posted Liberating Red Lion from the Glass Menagerie of Free Speech Jurisprudence, 1 J. on Telecomms. & High Tech. L. 293 (2002):
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), decreed a medium-specific approach to first amendment controversies involving radio and broadcast television. Although the Supreme Court has never applied Red Lion's scarcity rationale to any medium besides broadcasting, the Court has frequently resolved free speech disputes by drawing analogies to broadcasting.
Red Lion declared that courts should condition constitutional protection on the technological and economic characteristics of a regulated communications conduit. It specifically concluded that broadcasting, as a conduit, merited less rigorous first amendment review because of scarcity, the historic extent of governmental involvement in broadcasting, and the ongoing public interest in access to this intensely regulated medium. Most judicial and academic objections to Red Lion have addressed scarcity. This article takes aim instead at Red Lion's prescription of conduit-specific first amendment review, urging close scrutiny of rules that putatively regulate the economic aspects of communications technology but ultimately constrict the content of mass communications.
Full post as published by Jurisdynamics on April 15, 2008 (boomark / email).
Parody is a Protected Form of Speech
Targets of criticism seek to shut down Internet sites that poke fun
Free Speech
Canterbury agrees to pay $60,000 settlement in civil rights lawsuit.
Indianapolis
alleging the city's police are overly aggressive against the homeless in violation of the protection of free speech and unreasonable searches guaranteed in the US Constitution.
ValueClick
allegedly violated consumer protection laws by promising ‘free’ goods that where not actually free.
Bad Faith Estimate
Quality First Auto Glass pays $233,000 settlement in automotive lawsuit.
Oppenheimer ATM-Free New York Municipals
401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud
TransUnion
Class action credit practices suit offers free credit monitoring services for millions.

New L&C Law Scholarship: Quieting Disruption
More on censorship, and freedom, in Canada
Keep your trade marks current: Gallo v Lion Nathan




Red Lion declared that courts should condition constitutional protection on the technological and economic characteristics of a regulated communications conduit. It specifically concluded that broadcasting, as a conduit, merited less rigorous first amendment review because of scarcity, the historic extent of governmental involvement in broadcasting, and the ongoing public interest in access to this intensely regulated medium. Most judicial and academic objections to Red Lion have addressed scarcity. This article takes aim instead at Red Lion's prescription of conduit-specific first amendment review, urging close scrutiny of rules that putatively regulate the economic aspects of communications technology but ultimately constrict the content of mass communications.






