## Facts

- The Arkansas Educational Television Commission (AETC), a state-owned public television broadcaster, sponsored a televised debate between major-party candidates for Arkansas’ Third Congressional District in the 1992 election.
- Ralph P. Forbes, an independent candidate listed on the ballot, sought to participate but was excluded by AETC.
- Forbes sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that excluding him from the debate violated the First Amendment.
- A jury found Forbes’ exclusion was not influenced by political pressure and was not based on disagreement with his views; judgment was entered for AETC.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed, characterizing the debate as a public forum and applying strict scrutiny to invalidate the exclusion based on Forbes’ lack of “political viability.”
- The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the exclusion violated the First Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether a televised candidate debate sponsored by a state-owned public broadcaster is a public forum that presumptively requires access for all ballot-qualified candidates.
2. Whether excluding a ballot-qualified independent candidate based on “political viability” violates the First Amendment.
3. What constitutional standard governs a public broadcaster’s participant selection for such a debate.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and held that AETC’s exclusion of Forbes was consistent with the First Amendment.
- The Court classified the televised debate as a nonpublic forum, not a traditional public forum open to all ballot-qualified candidates.
- In a nonpublic forum, AETC could impose participation limits that were reasonable and viewpoint neutral.
- Based on the jury finding that the exclusion was not motivated by viewpoint or political pressure, AETC’s decision was upheld.
- Selecting participants using objective measures of candidate support and campaign strength was deemed a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral criterion.

## Legal Principles

- Candidate debates sponsored by public broadcasters may be analyzed under public forum doctrine, but forum categories must be applied with attention to the broadcast context and the broadcaster’s editorial role.
- A debate is a nonpublic forum when it is a curated event that is not opened to the public for general participation (e.g., not an open-microphone format).
- In a nonpublic forum, access restrictions must be reasonable and not aimed at suppressing speech because of disagreement with the speaker’s viewpoint.
- A public broadcaster may consider “political viability” as a permissible, viewpoint-neutral basis for selecting debate participants when grounded in objective indicators of support (such as fundraising, organization, media coverage, and polling).

## Conclusion

The Court held that a state-owned public television broadcaster sponsoring a candidate debate creates a nonpublic forum and may exclude a ballot-qualified candidate so long as the exclusion is reasonable and viewpoint neutral; using objective measures of political viability satisfied that standard in this case.


Ark. Educ. Television Comm'n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998)