Laserfiche WebLink
- 14 - <br />use the right-of-way. This allepatlon, if true, would ' <br />mean that TCI's First Amendment rights had been lafringed <br />even if the property was no: a public forum, for the <br />government may not place unreasonable restrictions on <br />speech even in nonforume. On property that is a public <br />forum, the government may restrict speech just to serve <br />sigrificant (if content neutral) or compelling (if <br />not content - neutral) interests. Perry Education <br />Assn v. Ferry Local Educators' Ass n, 461 U.S 17 (1983). <br />The Court also held that the district court had <br />erroneously dismissed TCI's Fifth Amendment claim, at <br />least insofar as its equal protection portion, if not <br />the takings clause component. The Court, however, <br />affirmed the dismissal of TCI's antitrust claim. <br />case. A petition for certiorari was not sought in this <br />C. The Nicovill• Florida Case <br />In February 1980, the City Council of Nicevllle, <br />Florida granted Warner Amex Cable Communications, Inc. <br />(hereinafter "Warner Amex") ■ 15-year franchise for ' <br />the conatruction and operation of a cable television. <br />system. <br />Last October, the Council enacted an ordinance <br />authorizinq the City to construct and operate a competir9 <br />cable system. Warner Amex filed suit asking for <br />injunctive and declaratory relief against the enforcement <br />And implementation of the ordinance, and seeking, damages <br />(including punitive damages), attorneys' fees and coats. <br />Warner Nsex Cable Communications Inc. v. city of <br />Nicevllle, No. PCA 95-4414 RV (N.D. Fla. filed Nov. 8, <br />1985). <br />Warner Amex alleges that the ordinance infringes <br />its First Amendment rights; is unconstitutionally <br />overbroad; violates due process; would violate the Cable <br />Act by permitting the City to exercise editorial control <br />over the content of serlicas provided over the municipal <br />system; and violates the Florida State Constitution <br />and Codes in that the cable system would not serve a <br />municipal purpose and is not a project for which the <br />City is authorized to issue revenue bonds. <br />The City has filed an answer, and discovery is <br />proceeding. The dates for argument have net been set. <br />