CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. v. PREFERRED COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Too many public officials harness the power of social media while also selectively blocking or banning certain members of the public from interacting with their accounts.

Whether the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) induces public libraries to violate the 1st Amendment, thereby exceeding Congress's power under the Spending Clause by providing that a library that is otherwise eligible for special federal assistance for Internet access in the form of discount rates for educational purposes under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 254(h), or grants under the Library Services and Technology Act, 20 U.S.C. 9121 et seq., may not receive that assistance unless the library has in place a policy that includes the operation of a technology protection measure on Internet-connected computers that protects against access by all persons to visual depictions that are obscene or child pornography, and that protects against access by minors to visual depictions that are harmful to minors, a condition of the receipt of federal funding.

Whether a federal law requiring cable operators to "fully scramble" indecent and sexually explicit programming on adult stations violate the First Amendment.

Whether a federal law banning truthful, nonmisleading broadcast ads of private casino gaming violates commercial free-speech rights.

Whether the provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that prohibit the transmission of indecent and patently offensive materials to minors over the Internet violate the First Amendment.

Whether the government may constitutionally require cable television system operators to carry local broadcast stations.

Whether the government may constitutionally (1) permit cable operators to refuse to carry indecent material on leased local access channels, (2) require cable operators that choose to carry indecent local access programming to place such programming on a separate channel and to block the channel until the subscriber requests unblocking, and (3) permit cable operators to refuse to carry indecent programming on local public, educational, and governmental channels.

Whether the government may constitutionally require cable television system operators to carry local broadcast stations.

Whether a California law banning indecent as well as obscene interstate commercial telephone messages violated the First Amendment's free speech guarantee

Whether Section 399 of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, as amended by the Public Broadcasting Amendments Act of 1981, which forbids any "non-commercial educational broadcasting station which receives a grant from the Corporation" to "engage in editorializing," violate the First Amendment.

Whether a broadcast of patently offensive words dealing with sex and excretion may be regulated because of its content.

Whether the operation of a radio service broadcasting music, commercials and announcements on public buses violates the freedoms of speech and privacy guaranteed to citizens by the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

Whether a New York Education Law that prohibited the commercial showing of any motion picture film without a license, and authorized denial of a license on a censors conclusion that a film was "sacrilegious," violated the First Amendment. Could the New York Board of Regents ban Roberto Rossellinis The Miracle under regulations barring "sacrilegious" films?

Do the constitutional protections of freedom of expression, including those of the Ohio Constitution, extend to motion pictures?