Columbia Broadcasting, Inc. v. Democratic National Comm.
412 U.S. 94 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A broadcast licensee's general policy of refusing to sell advertising time to individuals or groups for the purpose of expressing views on controversial public issues does not violate the Federal Communications Act or the First Amendment, so long as the broadcaster meets its broader obligation under the Fairness Doctrine to provide full and fair coverage of public issues.
Facts:
- Business Executives' Move for Vietnam Peace (BEM), an organization of businessmen opposed to the Vietnam War, sought to purchase one-minute spot announcements from radio station WTOP in Washington, D.C.
- WTOP had a general policy of not selling advertising time to individuals or groups to express views on controversial public issues.
- Pursuant to its policy, WTOP refused to sell the requested advertising time to BEM.
- WTOP maintained that it already presented full and fair coverage of the Vietnam conflict and other public questions, fulfilling its obligations under the Fairness Doctrine.
- Separately, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) sought to purchase air time from various broadcast stations to present the views of the Democratic Party and solicit funds.
- The DNC anticipated that many stations would refuse their request based on policies similar to WTOP's.
Procedural Posture:
- Business Executives' Move for Vietnam Peace (BEM) filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) against radio station WTOP.
- The Democratic National Committee (DNC) filed a separate request for a declaratory ruling with the FCC.
- In two orders, the FCC ruled that a broadcaster who meets their Fairness Doctrine obligations is not required to accept paid editorial advertisements.
- BEM and the DNC appealed the FCC's decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- A divided Court of Appeals reversed the FCC, holding that a broadcaster's flat ban on selling time for editorial advertisements violates the First Amendment.
- The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the FCC to develop procedures for implementing a limited right of access.
- The broadcasters and the FCC (petitioners) sought and were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a broadcast licensee's general policy of refusing to sell advertising time to individuals or groups wishing to speak on controversial public issues violate the Federal Communications Act or the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. A broadcast licensee's policy of refusing to sell editorial advertising time does not violate the Federal Communications Act or the First Amendment, as long as the licensee meets its obligation under the Fairness Doctrine to cover public issues. First, the actions of a private broadcaster do not constitute 'governmental action' for First Amendment purposes, as Congress intended to preserve a substantial measure of journalistic independence for licensees and did not make them common carriers. Second, neither the Communications Act nor the First Amendment requires broadcasters to accept paid editorial advertisements. Congress and the FCC have reasonably determined that the public interest is best served by entrusting editorial judgment to licensees, who are accountable for providing balanced coverage under the Fairness Doctrine. Forcing a right of access would favor the wealthy, risk monopolization of airtime by certain viewpoints, and dangerously entangle the government in the day-to-day editorial decisions of broadcasters, ultimately undermining the goal of robust public debate.
Concurring - Justice Stewart
No. Holding that private broadcasters are equivalent to the government for First Amendment purposes would be a dangerous step that could eventually be applied to newspapers, destroying the freedom of the press. This view would strip broadcasters of their own First Amendment rights and turn them into common carriers, obligated to air all views. The First Amendment protects the press from government interference; it does not require the government to impose controls on the press in the name of 'First Amendment values.' The 'public interest' standard of the Communications Act is not coextensive with the First Amendment, and the FCC's decision to allow broadcaster discretion is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
Concurring - Justice White
No. While it is strongly arguable that the extensive federal regulation of broadcasting constitutes sufficient governmental action to trigger First Amendment review, the broadcaster's policy is nevertheless constitutional. Given the established constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, which entrusts licensees with the discretion to choose how they will provide balanced coverage, it is consistent with the First Amendment to allow them the freedom to refuse editorial advertisements and meet their obligations through their own programming.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
No. Because the Court's opinion demonstrates that the broadcaster's policy does not violate the First Amendment even assuming governmental action is present, it is unnecessary to decide the governmental action issue. The Court of Appeals erred in creating a constitutional holding that freezes a dynamic regulatory process, and the policy is permissible under the First Amendment.
Concurring - Justice Douglas
No, but for different reasons. TV and radio stations are part of the 'press' and are entitled to the same absolute First Amendment protection as newspapers. The government has no more right to regulate broadcast content through mechanisms like the Fairness Doctrine than it does to regulate newspaper content. The scarcity of frequencies is not a constitutionally valid reason to treat broadcasters differently from newspapers, which also face significant economic barriers to entry. The First Amendment requires a complete laissez-faire regime, and government should keep its hands off the press, including TV and radio.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes. A broadcaster's absolute ban on selling air time for messages on controversial public issues violates the First Amendment. The extensive government licensing and regulation of the publicly-owned airwaves constitutes 'governmental action,' making broadcasters subject to constitutional constraints. The Fairness Doctrine, which leaves editorial control almost exclusively in the hands of broadcasters, is insufficient to guarantee the public's paramount right to receive information from diverse and antagonistic sources. Denying citizens a direct opportunity to speak for themselves, while granting it to commercial advertisers, unconstitutionally prioritizes commercial speech over political speech and stifles the 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' debate the First Amendment is meant to protect.
Analysis:
This landmark decision firmly rejected the concept of a constitutionally mandated right of paid access to the broadcast media. By refusing to treat broadcasters as common carriers or state actors, the Court reinforced the 'public trustee' model, granting licensees significant journalistic discretion over their programming content. The ruling prioritized the licensee's editorial freedom and the existing regulatory framework of the Fairness Doctrine over an individual's right to purchase airtime for political speech. This holding solidified the power of broadcasters to control the format and presentation of public issue discussions and has had a lasting impact on the legal landscape of media access and broadcast regulation, distinguishing the electronic press from public forums.
Unlock the full brief for Columbia Broadcasting, Inc. v. Democratic National Comm.