95-992.ZC Concurring
cou...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
--------
No. 95-992
--------
TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., et al.,
APPELLANTS v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION et al.
on appeal from the united states district court
for the district of columbia
[March 31, 1997]
Justice Stevens, concurring.
As Justice Kennedy clearly explains, the policy judg-
ments made by Congress in the enactment of legislation
that is intended to forestall the abuse of monopoly
power are entitled to substantial deference. Ante, at
12-13, 43. That is true even when the attempt to
protect an economic market imposes burdens on commu-
nication. Cf. United States v. Radio Corp. of America,
358 U. S. 334 (1959); FTC v. Superior Court Trial
Lawyers Assn., 493 U. S. 411, 428, n. 12 (1990) (-`This
Court has recognized the strong governmental interest
in certain forms of economic regulation, even though
such regulation may have an incidental effect on rights
of speech and association'- (quoting NAACP v. Claiborne
Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886, 912 (1982)). If this stat-
ute regulated the content of speech rather than the struc-
ture of the market, our task would be quite different.
See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S.
622, 669, n. 2 (1994) (Stevens, J., concurring in part
and concurring in judgment). Cf. Sable Communications
of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115, 129 (1989); Land-
mark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U. S. 829,
843 (1978). Though I write to emphasize this important
point, I fully concur in the Court's thorough opinion.