Fox News lawsuit would strip First Amendment protection from cable news, internet – Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Are cable news channels protected by the First Amendment?
Thats the question teed up in a little-noticed lawsuit against Fox News for its COVID-19 coverage, which the plaintiff claims discounted the threat of the pandemic and led viewers to fail to protect themselves. The plaintiff, a small Washington state nonprofit called the Washington League for Increased Transparency and Ethics, or WASHLITE, is suing Fox for what it claims are violations of the states consumer protection laws.
Fox and WASHLITE have already gone back and forth on the consumer protection claim, but the nonprofit filed an extraordinary brief last week in response to Foxs motion to dismiss, arguing that cable news channels, indeed all cable content producers, are wholly unprotected by the First Amendment when that content is distributed over a third-party cable operators system. The plaintiff is misstating the law and doing so in such a way that would impair speech and press protections for everyone.
In fact, the argument if taken to its logical conclusion would strip First Amendment protections from content distributed over the public internet, including this blog post. To understand why, one needs a bit of background.
Cable television in the United States dates back to the late 1940s and early 1950s, but for the first quarter century of its existence was limited to sending terrestrial, over-the-air television broadcasts over coaxial cables to areas that, because of remoteness or mountainous terrain, suffered poor reception. Original cable programming started in the early 1970s with pioneers like Home Box Office, TBS, and the cult Z Channel in Los Angeles.
Starting at about the same time, the Federal Communications Commission began promulgating rules for cable programming, the most relevant here being requirements that cable programmers dedicate certain channels for public, educational, or government (PEG) use, or for commercial lease by unaffiliated programmers. An ongoing debate over the FCCs authority to impose these rules and efforts to both regulate and deregulate the industry led to passage of federal laws in 1984 and 1992 governing cable providers leased access and PEG channel requirements.
Prior to 1992, cable providers were prohibited from exercising any editorial control over leased or PEG channels. In the 1992 law, Congress enacted three provisions empowering cable providers to permit or restrict leased access or PEG programming that depicts sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner as measured by contemporary community standards (in other words, indecent content).
The first provision permitted, but did not require, cable operators to enforce rules against indecency on PEG or leased access channels. The second was an affirmative command: If an operator decided to permit indecent content over leased access channels, it had to limit it to a single channel and block access unless a cable subscriber requested access (the segregate-and-block requirement). Third, the 1992 law required the FCC to implement regulations that would allow cable operators to prohibit similar content on PEG access channels.
A coalition of cable programmers and viewers challenged parts of the law under the First Amendment. That 1996 Supreme Court case, Denver Area Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, is the main precedent cited by WASHLITE against Fox. The decision itself is a thicket there are six different opinions but the bottom line is that it does not stand for the proposition that cable programmers are unprotected by the First Amendment when their content is distributed by a third-party cable operator, quite the contrary.
Crucially, the majority found that the second provision, the affirmative segregate-and-block requirement for leased access, was a violation of the First Amendment rights of programmers and operators. Six justices agreed (Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day OConnor, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens). Three justices Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. And WASHLITE relies on this dissent, which, as explained below, also does not hold that cable programmers are unprotected by the First Amendment.
Indeed, the action in the case was around the first and third provisions. Confusingly, two justices Kennedy and Ginsburg would have struck down all three provisions. And, three justices Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist would have upheld all three provisions (thus they concurred in upholding the first provision). Justice OConnor would have upheld the first and third provisions.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the first provision, which permitted but did not require cable operators to limit indecent content on leased and PEG channels, by a vote of 7-2. As noted, the second provision was struck down by a vote of 6-3. And the third provision, permitting operators to regulate indecent speech on PEG channels, was held unconstitutional by a vote of 5-4. (Justices found that, unlike leased channels, PEG programming was, one, unlikely to contain indecent content and, two, was provided for in local franchise agreements, meaning that a federally recognized right to limit indecent speech could interfere with those agreements.)
Returning to the dissent relied on by WASHLITE, as noted, Justice Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia, would have upheld all three provisions. For the first and third provisions, Justice Thomas focused on their permissive nature that is, they did not forbid cable operators from carrying indecent content, and therefore did not burden the First Amendment rights of cable programmers (note that Justice Thomas is acknowledging that such rights exist).
Rather, the first and third provisions restored editorial discretion to the cable operator. As Justice Thomas reasoned, the cable operators were the ones harmed by the PEG and leased access requirements, like a bookstore forced to sell books published on the subject of congressional politics. This is what WASHLITE cites in their brief they note that Justice Thomas held that cable programmers do not have an affirmative right to force a private cable operator to carry content, but Justice Thomas did not say that content providers lack First Amendment rights.
Further, with respect to the second provision, the segregate-and-block requirement for cable operators who decide to carry indecent programming, far from eschewing First Amendment rights for the cable programmers, Justice Thomas expressly recognizes them. Unlike the first and third provisions, the segregate-and-block requirement clearly implicates [the cable programmers and viewers] rights, Justice Thomas wrote.
But, Justice Thomas applied strict scrutiny the highest level of constitutional scrutiny, which courts must apply to government restrictions on speech based on its content and found that the government had met its burden to show the second provision was narrowly tailored to satisfy a compelling government interest. In other words, the dissenting justices would have found that, while cable programmers have First Amendment rights, the government had a really good reason to require operators to segregate and block indecent content (to protect children) and that other means to do so, like the V-chip, were not up to the task.
At base, WASHLITE makes two legal errors. One, it relies on a dissent in a case where the majority expressly found First Amendment protections for cable programmers on a third-party cable system. Two, it misconstrues that dissent. Rather than holding that cable programmers have no First Amendment rights, the dissent would have found that in the context of indecent programming the segregate-and-block requirement satisfied the strict in theory, fatal in fact high bar of strict scrutiny analysis. WASHLITE has failed to even advance an argument as to why the same analysis should apply in the context of a state consumer protection lawsuit seeking to penalize the exercise of editorial discretion on a news channel.
Two final points are in order.
First, not only does WASHLITE misstate the law with respect to cable, it does so with respect to print and over-the-air broadcast media as well. The only medium of communication subject to slightly less First Amendment protection under current law is bunny ears broadcasting that is the use of the electromagnetic spectrum to broadcast audio and visual information over the air. This is because, one, spectrum is scarce, meaning government intervention is theoretically justified to preserve viewpoint diversity, and, two, its pervasive, meaning that, in essence, children could be inadvertently exposed to indecent speech absent government regulation.
Further, that limited exception for over-the-air broadcast is itself now controversial, as the advent of the internet, the conversion of analog signals to digital, and other technological advancements that have mitigated scarcity and allowed for greater consumer control, have undercut the legal justifications for the Red Lion and Pacifica decisions allowing government regulation of over-the-air content.
Second, and as noted, WASHLITEs argument is not limited to cable. It is effectively saying that when a news organization uses a third party to get its news to the public, the content of that news receives no First Amendment protection.
Among other things, that logic would extend to newspapers who use third-party contractors to deliver the physical paper or rely on internet service providers to distribute digital content. It would extend to syndicated radio programs who sell content to third-party broadcasters. And it would apply to the broadcast networks. ABC, CBS, the CW, FOX, and NBC would only be protected when their programming is broadcast by owned-and-operated stations. PBS wouldnt be protected at all because it doesnt own its member stations.
In fact, that logic would strip First Amendment protections from this blog post because the Reporters Committee relies on a third party to host our website and third-party internet and technology providers to transmit our speech to the public.
The COVID-19 pandemic is both a public health crisis and a profound challenge to civil liberties here and around the world. And it is a political crisis that is provoking intense and acrimonious policy debates at all points on the ideological spectrum. But that debate means that the First Amendment matters more now, not less, and regardless of who is doing the speaking or debating, it should be vigilantly protected. WASHLITEs legal theory would limit the ability of all Americans to report the news or, more broadly, speak freely on one of the most important public policy debates in generations.
The Reporters Committee regularly files friend-of-the-court briefs and its attorneys represent journalists and news organizations pro bono in court cases that involve First Amendment freedoms, the newsgathering rights of journalists and access to public information. Stay up-to-date on our work by signing up for our monthly newsletter and following us on Twitter or Instagram.
- NYUs First Amendment Watch Launches Trump 2.0: Executive Power and the First Amendment - NYU - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- CCIA Files Amicus Brief Defending the First Amendment Rights of Email Service Providers - CCIA - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Zick on executive orders and official orthodoxies First Amendment News 469 - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Why Journalists Must Band Together to Defend the First Amendment - PEN America - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Youngkin vetoes Confederate tax break roll back, but First Amendment scholar says that might be best - WHRO - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Baxter County facing $102,757 payment after losing eight-year First Amendment lawsuit - Mountain Home Observer - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- DOJ to investigate this new Washington law for first amendment violations - KGW - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Judge orders Tufts scholar Rumeysa Ozturk released from ICE detention after serious First Amendment and due process questions - MSN - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- The First Amendment and the Trump Administration's Anti-DEI Executive Orders - Reason Magazine - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Here Is Why Harvard Argues That Trump's Funding Freeze Violates the First Amendment - Reason Magazine - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Thankfully, Larry David mocks Bill Maher First Amendment News 467 - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- No, Gov. Lombardo, nobody was being paid to exercise First Amendment rights - Reno Gazette Journal - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Letter from the Editor: The First Amendment shaped my time on the Hill - WKUHerald.com - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Analysis: Pro-Hamas speech is protected by the First Amendment - Free Speech Center - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Who Will Fight for the First Amendment? Protecting Free Expression at a Critical Time - - Center for Democracy and Technology - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- What the Doxxing of Student Activists Means For the First Amendment - The Progressive - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Does Gov. Landrys bid to restrict attorney advertising violate the First Amendment? - Baton Rouge Business Report - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Harvard invokes First Amendment in US lawsuit over academic control - Times of India - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Fun with the First Amendment: Why Sarah Palins lawyers are happy, and why Deborah Lipstadt isnt - Media Nation - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- The First Amendment Is Being Rewritten in Real Time - Rewire News Group - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Criminalizing the Assertion of First Amendment Rights - Law.com - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Massachusetts First Amendment case: Harmony Montgomerys custody hearing audio to be released - Boston Herald - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Harvard, Trump and the First Amendment: Will Others Follow Suit? - Law.com - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Executive Watch: The breadth and depth of the Trump administrations threat to the First Amendment First Amendment News 465 - FIRE | Foundation for... - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Rising Wave of Funders and PSOs Stand Up for the First Amendment Freedom to Give - Inside Philanthropy - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Clear commands of First Amendment precedent: Trump-appointed judge rejects government motion to stay court order allowing Associated Press back into... - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Distinguished lecture series on First Amendment at URI adds Visiting Professors of Practice Rhody Today - The University of Rhode Island - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Everything starts with a voice: Understanding the First Amendment - The Tack Online - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- This is an all-out war on the First Amendment - mronline.org - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- The lost right in the first amendment - The Tack Online - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Zero-tolerance laws on Tennessee school shooting threats raise First Amendment worries - The Tennessean - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Federal Judge Orders White House to Restore Access to AP, Citing First Amendment - Democracy Now! - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Does the First Amendment apply to the students in Texas who had their visas revoked? - Fort Worth Star-Telegram - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Guest Column: Detention of Tufts Student a Brazen Attack on the First Amendment - The Bedford Citizen - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- KU students protest for First Amendment rights - The Washburn Review - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Trackergate: The First Amendment Fights Back as Schieve and Hartung Face the Music - Nevada Globe - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- A friend's wedding, the First Amendment - Delta Democrat-Times - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Judge rules against White House in AP's First Amendment case - newscentermaine.com - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- UMass Amherst library hosts webinar on the First Amendment and book banning - Massachusetts Daily Collegian - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Kansas Statehouse clownery has torn First Amendment to shreds. Who will tape it back together? - Kansas Reflector - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Is Mahmoud Khalil protected by the First Amendment? - CNN - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- D.C. Media's Gridiron Dinner Features A Toast To The First Amendment --- And Not To The President - Deadline - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Mayors Threat to Close Miami Cinema Over No Other Land Screening Condemned by Film Groups as First Amendment Violation - Yahoo - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- TSA Screeners' Union Sues the Trump Administration for Violating Its First Amendment Rights - Reason - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Kevin McCabe: Why defending the First Amendment means protecting the Second - Must Read Alaska - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Murder the Truth explores the campaign against the First Amendment - The Washington Post - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- The Trump-Musk Administration Is Running Out of Ways to Ignore the First Amendment - Balls & Strikes - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- From Gods to Google: DU Law Professor Sounds Alarm Over First Amendment and Technology Regulation - University of Denver Newsroom - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Intimidating abridgments and political stunts First Amendment News 461 - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Opinion | The Khalil case is a threat to First Amendment rights - The Washington Post - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Fallout from campus protests sparks debate on limits of the First Amendment - Spectrum News - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Troy Carico: Stabbing the First Amendment in the back in Alabama | - 1819 News - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Donald Trump Is Tearing Up The First Amendment - HuffPost - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Sorry Mahmoud Khalil, Aliens Do Not Have the Same First Amendment Rights as American Citizens - Immigration Blog - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- BREAKING: Bill Nye to headline annual Loyolan First Amendment Week - Los Angeles Loyolan - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Spokane and Bonner county sheriff's offices can no longer hide or delete critical Facebook comments after First Amendment concerns, judges rule - The... - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Paula Rigano: Last time I checked, the First Amendment still stood - GazetteNET - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Trump is using antisemitism as a pretext for a war on the first amendment | Judith Levine - The Guardian - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Professor Can Continue with First Amendment Claim Over Denial of Raise for Including Expurgated Slurs on Exam - Reason - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Free Mahmoud Khalil and protect students exercising their First Amendment rights! - MoveOn's petitions - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Guy Ciarrocchi: The lesson from Covid the experts hate our First Amendment - Broad + Liberty - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Trump Administration Faces Growing Backlash Over First Amendment Concerns and Threats to Free Speech - Arise News - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- The Lobby, Mahmoud Khalil & the First Amendment - Consortium News - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Expressive Discrimination: Universities' First Amendment Right to Affirmative Action Part 2 - Reason - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Inside Israel's Plan To Resume the War and 'Eradicate Hamas.' Plus, Trump's Press Pool Takeover Is Not an Assault on the First Amendment. - Washington... - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Expressive Discrimination: Universities' First Amendment Right to Affirmative Action - Reason - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- OPINION: Attacking the First Amendment and America's free press - Midland Daily News - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Press pool takeover drowns First Amendment - Freedom of the Press Foundation - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- First Amendment Victory! Wyoming Airport Agrees to Settlement After Rejecting PETA Ad - PETA - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Our View: Theres nothing murky about the First Amendment - Palestine Herald Press - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Ohio Universitys complicated history with the First Amendment and student expression - The New Political - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- A free press makes a country free The First Amendment protects the liberty of all - Hawaii Tribune-Herald - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Whats the First Amendment Got to Do With It? The White Houses Associated Press Ban - Law.com - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Opinion | The First Amendment Isnt on Trumps Side - The Wall Street Journal - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Trump Tries To Carve Out a First Amendment Exception for 'Fake News' - Reason - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- MTHS receives its 15th First Amendment Press Freedom Award - MLT News - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- The White House takeover of the press pool is a brazen attack on the First Amendment - MSNBC - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Donald Trump violated the First Amendment when he barred The Associated Press from the White House - The Observer - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- D.C.'s U.S. Attorney Is a Menace to the First Amendment - Reason - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Ominous Move to Strip Americans of First Amendment Rights - DCReport - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]