47 U.S.C. § 558
Criminal and civil liability
Nothing in this subchapter shall be deemed to affect the criminal or civil liability of cable programmers or cable operators pursuant to the Federal, State, or local law of libel, slander, obscenity, incitement, invasions of privacy, false or misleading advertising, or other similar laws, except that cable operators shall not incur any such liability for any program carried on any channel designated for public, educational, governmental use or on any other channel obtained under section 532 of this title or under similar arrangements unless the program involves obscene material.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1986–2014 · leading case: Playboy Enter., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Puerto Rico, 906 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1990).
Playboy Enter., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Puerto Rico, 906 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1990). “47 U.S.C. § 558 . See H.R.Rep. 934, 98th Cong.”
Denver Area Educ. Telecomm. Consortium, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 518 U.S. 727 (1996). “[14] Petitioners argue that § 10(d) of the 1992 Act, 47 U. S. C. § 558 , which lifts cable operators' immunity for obscene speech, forces or encourages operators to ban indecent speech.”
Playboy Enter., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Puerto Rico, 698 F. Supp. 401 (D.P.R. 1988). “47 U.S.C. § 558 . Section 612 of the Cable Communications Policy Act, 47 U.”
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Yakubets, 3 F. Supp. 3d 261 (E.D. Pa. 2014). “” 47 U.S.C. § 558 (c)(8)(B). The courts of appeals have not addressed the meaning of this requirement, but it would seem to be satisfied by a broad set of circumstances.”
Cablevision of S. Connecticut, Ltd. P'ship v. Smith, 141 F. Supp. 2d 277 (D. Conn. 2001). “Taking the *284 allegations of Cablevision’s complaint as true, Smith has violated 47 U.S.C. § 558 (a), by intercepting Cablevision’s cable television programming services using a “pirate” device without Cablevision’s authorization or making payment therefor.”
Massad v. E. Connecticut Cable Television, Inc., 30 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2037 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). “Because 47 U.S.C. § 558 does not exempt cable programmers of public access shows from liability, the plaintiff argues that the court improperly concluded that the defendant was immune from suit.”
United States v. Richard A. Gardner, 860 F.2d 1391 (7th Cir. 1988). “In the indictment against him, Gardner was charged with two counts of violating 47 U.S.C. § 558 for selling the cable converter boxes to Perrin on October 7 and December 15, 1985.”
Caprotti v. Town of Woodstock, 721 N.E.2d 957 (NY 1999). “Further fortifying the conclusion that 47 USC § 555a (a) was not intended to preempt State defamation claims is the provision in a companion section which specifically and expressly directs that " cable operators shall not incur any such liability [for defamation] for any…”
Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. United States, 835 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1993). “47 U.S.C. § 558 (1988). Section 10(d) of the 1992 Act removes all immunity for carriage of obscenity.”
Time Warner Cable v. Freedom Elec., Inc., 897 F. Supp. 1454 (S.D. Fla. 1995). “” 47 U.S.C. § 558 (c)(3)(B). 33. For each violation of 47 U.”
Kerr-Mcgee Chem. Corp. v. City of West Chicago, 914 F.2d 820 (7th Cir. 1990). “2d at 31-33 (holding that 47 U.S.C. § 558 , a provision of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, provides an “immunity” enforceable through Section 1983 in an action brought to establish the preemptive force of that provision).”
Jones v. Wilkinson, 800 F.2d 989 (10th Cir. 1986). “at 1103 -04 (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 558 ). Finding that the Utah statute exceeded this limited power, 2 the district court held that the federal act preempted the Utah statute.”
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.