Arkansas+Educational+Television+Commission+v.+Forbes

Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes
KJ speaks: Here are a few comments after the fact regarding the case.

This case seems to me to be about whether government can create a forum in a public setting for a public purpose, but then limit access to that forum based on a criterion neutral to the viewpoints expressed by those excluded.

No one seems to suggest that Ralph Forbes had much support, he seems to have been considered a perenial candidate, who ran for any office up for grabs and had not developed much of a following among the public. A key question is whether that lack of a following is sufficient to exclude him--and presumably any other similar candidate--from a similar program. Mr Forbes could claim that his lack of support may be due to his not being included.

Three key designations are outlined in the syllabus: - a traditional public forum - a public forum created by government designation - a non public forum (this is what the court argued was created in this case)

[|Click here] for more background info on the distinction.

This distinction was already developed, and merely applied by the court. Part of the dispute centers which type of distinction applies.

Six justices signed the majority decision written by Kennedy. Three signed a dissent written by Stevens.

The majority: Does the Constitution require that every candidate of an office be allowed in a debate held and broadcast over a government owned station? The majority argues that it does not and the it is an appropriate use of journalstic discretion to exclude a candidate for viewpoint-neutral reasons.

1 - Facts in the case are outlined. Procedures in place to ensure that process in independent. Decision to limit debate to representatives of the two parties as well as any other candidate that demonstrated strong public appeal. Forbes had earned place on ballot because he recieved 2000 signatures on ballot. Not invited, and sued to be included. Signatured received after invitations sent out. Stated that 1st amendment and statutory law grants candidates limited acess. Dispute centered on whether restriction based on low public support was inkeeping with 1st amendment.

2 - What type of forum was being offered? Lower courts argued that the stattion was offering a public forum and therefore had to let Forbes participate. Television stations are not a publci forum like parks and parades. Discretion must be allowed. Some viewpoints will eb affected more than others as a result. The courts should not get in the business of overseeign journalistic discretion. The First amendment does not force broadcasters to allow third party candidates in debates. Broadcasters cannot allow everyone in, but they cannot make decision about who to include based on viewpoints.

3 - Fornes and the lower court ruled that the forum was public he should have been allowed in. The SC rules that it was non-public and restrictions could be allowed. If stations were forced to admoit all candidates for a rac, they may not choose to ais debates at all.

The Dissent Believes that the lower decision should not have been reversed. The majority decision "does not adhere to well settled court principle." Decision not based on standards. Importance of distinction between state and private ownership of media outlets.

1 - evidence is introduced stating that Forbes was a more serious challenger than alleged. Had been a seious statewide candidate for the Republican nomination for Lieutenant Governor. He could have had an impact on the outcome. A private organization that refused his paticipation would have been subject to scrutiny. No set criteria were in place prior to decision to exclude. The staff had the ability to restrict Forbes for ad hoc reasons. Agrees with apelate decision that decision to exclude was arbitrary. 2 - The majority did not consider seriously enough the fact that the station was publicly owned. Private stations woudl have more lleeway. The decision made in the 1920's to not allow for total government ownership was based on the probability that government would censor views. This is why censorship is the dominant concerns in this case--though it may not be for a privately owned station. 3 - requiring a license, or any control of access to a public forum, is censorship. The application of the law allows for too much discretion by election officials. And they are not reviewable. There are no clear guidelines regardign how vialble and newssorthy are to be defined. Speech concerning publci affairs and elections are the most important 1st amendment issues. Narrow specific and definite guidelines are needed. .

Argued Oct 8,1997- Decided May 18, 1998

__About the petitioner__- AETC, a state owned public television broadcaster- sponsored a debate btwn major canidates for the 1992 election in Arkansas' Third Congressional district. -denied the request of __Forbes-__an independent canidate w/ little popular support, for permission to participate in the debate. __Forbes files suit__- claiming, __inter alia-__, that he was entitled to participate under the __First Amendment. Jury says:__ that Forbes exclusion had not been influenced by political pressure or disagreement w/ his views. __District Court enters judgment for__ AETC:

__Eighth Circuit: Reversed__,(disagreed) holding that the debate was a public forum to which all ballot-qualified candidates had a presumptive right of access.


 * Any comments?

This page looks so boring without anyone commenting so I thought I'd break the ice....** I Googled the case and found this summary i dont know how accurate it is though....but it looks ok to me. The First Amendment ensures that "if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein," as Justice Robert Jackson wrote in the 1943 case //West Virginia v. Barnette.// The Arkansas Educational Television Commission, a state agency, sponsored a debate between the Democratic and Republican candidates for a U.S. House of Representatives seat in Arkansas' Third Congressional District. The Commission only invited the two major party candidates and excluded Ralph Forbes, a legally qualified independent candidate. AETC determined Forbes did not have sufficient "political viability" for inclusion. Forbes sued the agency. After a federal district court dismissed the claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed, finding that AETC had created a limited public forum to which Forbes had a presumptive right of access. //Forbes v. Arkansas Educational Television Commission//, 93 F.3d 497 (8th Cir. 1996). The appeals court determined that AETC's assessment of "political viability" was not a compelling enough interest nor narrowly tailored enough reason to pass constitutional review. Were the judiciary to require, and so to define and approve, pre-established criteria for access, it would risk implicating the courts in judgments that should be left to the exercise of journalistic discretion. ^^^i thought this might help as an outline....?^^^
 * Date Decided: || May 18, 1998. ||
 * Issue: ||
 * Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.** //— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution//
 * Facts: ||
 * Facts: ||
 * Legal Principles: || The Court analyzes right of access cases using the public forum doctrine. There are three types of fora: traditional public fora, limited or designated public fora and nonpublic fora. //Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn//., 460 U.S. 37 (1983). Even in a nonpublic forum, government officials cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, discriminate based on viewpoint. //Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va//., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). However, television broadcasters enjoy "the widest possible journalistic freedom" consistent with their public responsibilities. //FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal//., 468 U.S. 364 (1984). ||
 * Legal basis for Decision: || The Court first noted that public television broadcasters must enjoy wide latitude when making editorial judgments without being subjected to claims of viewpoint discrimination. Next, the Court determined that AETC did not create a limited, or designated, public forum when it sponsored the debate. Distinguishing between "general access" and "selective access," the Court wrote that "a designated public forum is not created when the government allows selective access for individual speakers rather than general access for a class of speakers." Because of the Court's finding that the AETC-sponsored debate was a nonpublic forum, AETC complies with First Amendment guarantees as long as it did not discriminate based on political viewpoint. At an earlier stage of the complex procedural history, a jury found that AETC did not deny access to Forbes based on viewpoint. The U.S. Supreme Court found there was "ample support for this finding." ||
 * This Case is Important Because: || The case shows the continued viability of the public forum doctrine. The Court's decision also establishes that television broadcasters enjoy wide latitude in the exercise of editorial discretion. Even in the case of sponsored political debates, television broadcasters can exclude candidates of limited appeal as long as the reasons for the exclusion are reasonable and viewpoint neutral. ||
 * Quotable: ||
 * Quotable: ||
 * Writing for the majority: || Justice Kennedy ||
 * Voting with the majority: || Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas and Breyer ||
 * Writing for the Dissent: || Justice Stevens ||
 * Voting with the Dissent: || Justices Souter and Ginsberg ||
 * Court Writings: || You can link to Cornell Law School's web site of the full texts of this case's writings [|here] ||
 * Court Writings: || You can link to Cornell Law School's web site of the full texts of this case's writings [|here] ||

Where can you find info over what the Public Forum Doctrine

A //public forum//, also called an //open forum//, is open to all expression that is protected under the [|First Amendment]. Some public forums, such as municipal meeting rooms, have been specifically designated by the government as open to speech, and are known as //limited public forums//. Others, including streets, parks and sidewalks, are considered open by tradition, and are designated as //traditional public forums//. The practical difference between the two is that whereas a limited forum can be changed to a nonpublic forum by the government, traditional forums cannot

i found a good website that has information on the Justices' and if you click on their picture it gives a biography http://www.oyez.org/cases/case/?case=1990-1999/1997/1997_96_779