User:Paradigmspecies/sandbox

Preferred Communications v. City of Los Angeles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Preferred Communications v. City of Los Angeles, 476 U.S. 488 (1986) was a complaint heard before the Supreme Court of the United States where the Court determined in a unanimous decision that the City of Los Angeles under the administration of Mayor Tom Bradley deprived the plaintiffs and their community of their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

History
Prior to the ubiquitous presence of broadband communications networks, including co-axial cable, fiber-optic and 5G wireless systems, there was a period of time during the 20th Century where television media (the sole source of real-time visual programming) was broadcast by radio-waves in low-fidelity. The advent of cable television was a leap beyond the former state-of-the art and allowed the public to pay for an extended range of high-quality programming.

Originating in the states of Arkansas, Oregon and Pennsylvania in the 1950s, cable television outgrew the various regulations imposed upon it and by the late 1970s reached the Los Angeles area, having accumulated over 16 million subscribers nationwide (in the United States.)

Controversy
The cable franchise offering in the city of Los Angeles, under the stewardship of Mayor Tom Bradley and his respective City Council, was the source of controversy and contention. A bidding process for the award of a non-exclusive franchise, meant to be impartial, was by objective standards biased to favor powerful supporters and material contributors of Mayor Bradley's campaign and political cronies. Furthermore, after the award, the City told franchise developers that cable was a "natural monopoly" and that only one system could utilize the right-of-way of the city's electronic infrastructure.

1st Amendment
In 1986, the case had reached the Supreme Court of the United States. The case was argued on April 29th, and decided on June 2nd of the same year (1986). In a unanimous ruling, the Court reversed the decision of the lower court (the 9th circuit court of appeals) which had dismissed the complaint filed by Preferred Communications Inc, or PCI. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion for a unanimous court, in which Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Justice Thurgood Marshal, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in addition to Chief Justice Marshall concurred, specifically in regards to the legal assertion that "the activities in which [Preferred Communications Inc.] allegedly seeks to engage plainly implicate First Amendment interests, Through original programming or by exercising editorial discretion over which stations or programs to include in its repertoire, respondent seeks to communicate messages on a wide verity of topics and in a wide variety of formats."

Timeline
In 1983 Preferred Communications Inc. (PCI) lodged a complaint in Federal District court against the City of Los Angeles on the grounds that their 1st Amendment rights had been violated. The City, among various other alleged criminal or unconstitutional practices, was attempting to limit the amount of Cable Television operators in its various regions, to one. It was argued that to have only one cable operator in a given area or region would amount to a monopoly. Members from the city council and other officers of the City including members of the department of water and power maintained that, similar to water or gas, Cable television constituted a “natural monopoly.” The analogy (between cable television and necessary commodities such as water or power) breaks down, however, in light of the fact that the Department (of Water and Power, Los Angeles) acknowledged that there was sufficient room on the wires already installed to include an additional cable television system.

The Ninth Circuit District Court dismissed the 1st Amendment claim without allowing said claim to be argued before a jury. In the United States, the right to a Jury Trial is outlined in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.

In 1984, the United States Congress passed "An Act" entitled "An Act To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide a national policy regarding cable television."

In 1986, after years of bureaucratic delays, the case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States in the month of April. The decision came down in June of the same year. In the words of the Court:"'The complaint should not have been dismissed. The activities in which [Preferred Communications Inc.] allegedly seeks to engage plainly implicate First Amendment interests. Through original programming or by exercising editorial discretion over which stations or programs to include in its repertoire, respondent sees to communicate messages on a wide variety of topics and in a wide variety of formats.'"