FASTEN YOUR LEGAL SAFETY BELT DEFENDANT PATRICK GORDON
YOU DENY ACCESS
YOU ARE GETTING SUED
B. Public Forum
Plaintiffs argue that, as well as being a state actor, AOTV is a "public forum" within the meaning of the First Amendment. Again, this question is open to debate.
Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg appear to agree with plaintiffs. In Denver Area *92 Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 116 S. Ct. 2374, 135 L. Ed. 2d 888 (1996), Justice Kennedy's concurrence made it very clear that he and Justice Ginsburg believed that "[a] public access channel is a public forum." Id. at 783, 116 S. Ct. 2374 (concurring in part, dissenting in part). Justice Kennedy observed that a channel like AOTV is "open to programming by the public." Id. at 790, 116 S. Ct. 2374. He also pointed out that the House Report "characterized public access channels as `the video equivalent of the speaker's soap box or the electronic parallel to the printed leaflet.'" Id. at 791, 116 S. Ct. 2374, quoting H.R.Rep. No. 98-934 at 30.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.