47 U.S.C. § 326
Censorship
Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1937–2025 · leading case: Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726 (1978).
Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726 (1978). “II The relevant statutory questions are whether the Commission's action is forbidden "censorship" within the meaning of 47 U. S. C. § 326 and whether speech that concededly is not obscene may be restricted as "indecent" under the authority of 18 U.”
Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973). “" 47 U. S. C. § 326 . From these provisions it seems clear that Congress intended to permit private broadcasting to develop with the widest journalistic freedom consistent with its public obligations.”
Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (2012). “Finding no First Amendment viola tion, the decision explained the constitutional standard under which regulations of broadcasters are assessed.”
Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 512 U.S. 622 (1994). “" 47 U. S. C. § 326 . The FCC is well aware of the limited nature of its jurisdiction, having acknowledged that it "has no authority and, in fact, is barred by the First Amendment and [§ 326] from interfering with the free exercise of journalistic judgment.”
CBS Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 663 F.3d 122 (3rd Cir. 2008). “§ 1464 (“Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by 5 See 47 U.S.C. § 326 (“Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no…”
Pacifica Found. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., 556 F.2d 9 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “In an effort to sustain the validity of its Order the Commission labels its prospective ban a channeling mechanism.”
Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. WNCN Listeners Guild, 450 U.S. 582 (1981). “[38] Section 326 of the Act provides: "Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed…”
CBS Corp. v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 535 F.3d 167 (3rd Cir. 2008). “Expressly acknowledging the forfeiture order's potential negative impact on broadcast coverage of live events where "there is no opportunity for journalistic editing," the FCC stated its *176 intention to exclude such circumstances from the scope of actionable indecency.”
Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. Midwest Video Corp., 440 U.S. 689 (1979). “, at 110 , quoting 47 U. S. C. § 326 . The holding of the Court in Columbia Broadcasting was in accord with the view of the Commission that the Act itself did not require a licensee to accept paid editorial advertisements.”
Home Box Off., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Prof'l Baseball, Intervenors, 567 F.2d 9 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “48 In addition, in many other proceedings the Commission has taken the position that the First Amendment and the anti-censorship provision of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 326 (1970), strip it of any authority to require or to prohibit broadcast of any particular material.”
Motion Picture Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 309 F.3d 796 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “may not impose requirements regarding the provision or content of cable services, except as expressly provided in this title”); see also 47 U.S.C. § 326 (providing that the FCC does not possess the power of censorship, and “no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or…”
Farmers Educ. & Coop. Union v. WDAY, Inc., 360 U.S. 525 (1959). “, 2d Sess., pt. 2, 9-13; Hearings before Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on S.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.