TV Looms for High Court

Hearn, Ted
April 2006
Multichannel News;4/3/2006, Vol. 27 Issue 14, p63
Reports on the approval of a bill by the U.S. Senate that would require the Supreme Court to televise its oral arguments. Prohibition of camera coverage when the due process rights of a party would be violated; Approval of another bill that would authorize presiding judges in lower federal courts to permit television coverage; Reasons of public affairs network C-SPAN for not endorsing the bills.


Related Articles

  • Rabbit test.  // Broadcasting & Cable;07/05/99, Vol. 129 Issue 28, p46 

    Editorial. Focuses on the decision of the United States Supreme Court to hear the argument of adult television channel Playboy regarding Section 505 of the Telecommunications Act. Restraining effect of section 505 on conduct of the cable business; Section 505 as an unnecessary amendment to...

  • Sound and Senate Fury. Albiniak, Paige // Broadcasting & Cable;03/26/2001, Vol. 131 Issue 13, p6 

    Reports on the television broadcasting legislation being considered by the United States Senate as of March 26, 2001. Provisions of the proposed legislation; Television broadcasters' need to offer discounts on advertising rates to politicians; Broadcasting industry groups' opposition to the...

  • Courting the viewers. Frank, Reuven // New Leader;02/24/97, Vol. 80 Issue 3, p20 

    Presents how radio and television journalists assert on the use of television in the courtrooms. Views of judges on the issue; Television show depicting courtroom trials; `The People's Court,' presided by Judge Joseph A. Wapner; Revival of `The People's Court to be presided by an artificial...

  • Court cool to must-carry. Stern, Christopher // Variety;10/14/96, Vol. 364 Issue 11, p80 

    Reports that US Supreme Court justices seem unconvinced of the legality of the law that requires cable television systems to set aside channels for broadcast television signals. Background on the law; Government and broadcasting industry lawyers' efforts to defend the law's constitutionality.

  • Indecency Proposal: Allow Cable Regulation. Hearn, Ted // Multichannel News;11/28/2005, Vol. 26 Issue 49, p1 

    The article reports on the decision of the U.S. cable-television industry to comply with federal indecency standards on foul language and overt sexual activity. The Senate Commerce Committee is planning to hold hearings on media and telecommunications policies in the first quarter of 2006. The...

  • Supremes Hear Pole-Attachment Views. Hearn, Ted // Multichannel News;10/8/2001, Vol. 22 Issue 41, p1 

    Focuses on the Supreme Court hearing of pole-attachment rates in the United States. Arguments over the regulation of pole rates; Efforts to protect cable operators from paying exorbitant pole-attachment rates; Federal efforts to preserve the rate-setting authority.

  • Court clears way for more Playboy. Hatch, David // Electronic Media;05/29/2000, Vol. 19 Issue 22, p21 

    Reports on the United States Supreme Court's decision on sex channels. Regulation of cable television; Option of 24-hour adult entertainment.

  • The indecency conundrum.  // Electronic Media;7/08/96, Vol. 15 Issue 28, p10 

    Opinion. Focuses on US Supreme Court's decision regarding indecent cable programming. Court's granting of the right to restrict material on leased access channels to cable operators; Relevance of the v-chip technology as a consumer-triggered sensor.

  • Court hears `safe harbor'. Hatch, David // Electronic Media;12/06/99, Vol. 18 Issue 49, p4 

    Deals with the United States (US) Supreme Court hearings on the oral arguments involving the constitutionality of a 1996 law requiring cable operators to scramble sexually explicit channels. Highlights on the law; Why the US Congress adopted the law; Details on the issue.


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics