Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), was a seminal First Amendment ruling at the United States Supreme Court.

The FCC conditioned its renewal of broadcast licenses on compliance with its regulations. Red Lion Broadcasting challenged the application of the fairness doctrine with respect to a particular broadcast.

Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC: It is permissible under the First Amendment to require media outlets to make broadcast time available for responses to personal attacks.

Jul 30, 2023 · Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (1969) said a regulation using the fairness doctrine to give a journalist airtime to respond to allegations did not violate the First Amendment.

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) fairness doctrine, stating that if a station makes a personal attack on an individual, it must also give that person an opportunity to respond to the criticism.

Red Lion [395 U.S. 367, 371] involves the application of the fairness doctrine to a particular broadcast, and RTNDA arises as an action to review the FCC's 1967 promulgation of the personal attack and political editorializing regulations, which …

The Plaintiff, the Red Lion Broadcasting Co. (Plaintiff), alleges that its First Amendment constitutional rights were violated by the Defendant, the Federal Communication Commission (Defendant).

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), established the doctrine that broadcast television stations (and by logical extension, radio stations) are full First Amendment speakers whose editorial speech could …

Do the FCC's fairness doctrine regulations, concerning personal attacks made in the context of public issue debates and political editorializing, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantees?

Red Lion challenged the fairness doctrine on constitutional grounds, arguing that it violated their First Amendment rights by compelling them to broadcast speech they did not agree with, effectively limiting their editorial freedom and discretion.