## Facts

- Red Lion Broadcasting Company, Inc. held a federal license to operate radio station WGCB in Pennsylvania.
- WGCB aired a program in which Reverend Billy James Hargis criticized journalist Fred J. Cook by name, accusing him of dishonesty and improper associations in connection with debate on a public issue.
- Cook demanded free airtime to respond under the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine “personal attack” rules; the station refused.
- The FCC found the broadcast triggered the personal attack rules and ordered the station to (i) notify Cook, (ii) provide a transcript or tape (or summary), and (iii) afford a reasonable opportunity to respond without requiring Cook to pay.
- Related FCC rules also required reply opportunities when a station editorially endorsed or opposed a political candidate.
- The court of appeals upheld the FCC’s action; another court of appeals had invalidated the FCC’s formalized personal attack and political editorializing rules, and the Supreme Court reviewed both matters together.

## Issues

1. Whether the Communications Act authorized the FCC to enforce the Fairness Doctrine and the specific personal attack and political editorializing rules.
2. Whether these rules violate the First Amendment by imposing content-based obligations on broadcast licensees.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the FCC’s order against Red Lion and reversed the judgment that had invalidated the rules.
- The Court held the Fairness Doctrine and its personal attack and political editorializing rules were within the FCC’s statutory authority as an implementation of the “public interest” licensing standard, as recognized by Congress.
- The Court held the rules did not violate the First Amendment given the scarcity of broadcast frequencies and the government’s role in allocating them through licensing.
- The Court upheld requiring licensees, as public trustees, to provide opportunities for response and to present contrasting views on controversial issues of public importance.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may condition broadcast licenses on duties to operate in the public interest, including requirements aimed at informed public discussion of significant issues.
- The FCC may require broadcasters to provide notice, access to the challenged content (transcript/tape/summary), and a reasonable opportunity to respond when an identified person or group is personally attacked during programming addressing controversial public issues.
- The FCC may require a reasonable opportunity to respond when a station editorially endorses or opposes a political candidate.
- Because broadcast spectrum is scarce and government-allocated, broadcasters do not have a First Amendment right equivalent to the right of individuals to speak or publishers to print without such access obligations.
- The First Amendment analysis in broadcasting gives weight to the public’s interest in receiving diverse information and viewpoints, which can justify access and reply requirements for licensees.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine and related reply rules as a lawful application of the Communications Act’s public-interest licensing regime and as consistent with the First Amendment in light of spectrum scarcity and the public’s right to receive a balanced presentation of views.


Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969)