의무재송신제도는 케이블 TV방송사업자의 프로그램 편성권을 본질적으로 침해하는 제도라고 보기 어렵다. 의무재송신제도로 인해 케이블 방송사업자에게 요구하는 공공채널 및 종교채널은 각각 3개 채널 정도로 의무재송신제도로 인해 추가된 지상파 채널의 수가 제한적이어서 케이블 방송사업자의 독자적인 프로그램 편성권을 심각하게 침해할 정도도 아니다. 또한 방송법에서 케이블 텔레비전 사업자에게 일정한 프로그램에 한정하여 의무재송신 의무를 부과하는 것은 시청자의 정보의 자유라는 주관적 공권의 보장을 위한 최소한의 조치라고 할 수 있다. 의무재송신제도에 의한 케이블 방송에 대한 법적 규제의 성격은 내용에 기초한 규제가 아닌, 내용중립적 규제이다. 따라서 이 경우 사법심사의 정도는 중간적 심사기준이 적용되어야 한다. 또한 의무재송신제도가 헌법상 비례성 원칙에 위반되는지 여부를 살펴보면, 방송법상 케이블방송사업자에게 공공방송과 종교방송을 의무재송신하게 하는 조치는 케이블방송을 통해 공공성과 여론형성에 역할을 담당하도록 의무화시킴으로써 건전한 언론 형성을 위함이므로, 목적의 정당성이 인정된다. 의무재송신 제도 유지가 필요한가 여부는 입법형성의 자유에 속하는 것으로 판단된다. 또한 방송법 조항에서 의무재송신제를 통해 방송의 다양성 확보라는 측면에서 케이블 방송사에게 공공방송과 종교방송을 각각 3개 채널 이상을 의무화하는 것은 피해를 최소화하기 위함이다. 방송법 제70조 제3항 조항 중 의무재송신의 주체에 대한 평등권 문제가 발생한다. 종합유선방송사업자 및 위성방송사업자와 ‘이동멀티미디어방송을 행하는 위성방송사업자’간의 차별이 존재하고 차별의 합리성이 없어 방송사업자간의 평등권 침해가 될 수 있다.

The must-carry provisions are content-neutral. On their face, they distinguish only on the basis of the manner in which messages are transmitted, not on the basis of the messages themselves. By virtue of its ownership of the essential pathway for cable speech, a cable operator can prevent its subscribers from obtaining access to programming it chooses to exclude. A cable operator can thus silence the voice of competing speakers with a mere flick of the switch. It is very hard to regard Section 70 (3) of the Broadcast Act (the must-carry clause of public and religious signals) as content-neutral regulation. The State can place reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech without regard to content. A law that is content-neutral on its face will be treated as a law that is content-based if the individual whom the State wants to punish can show that the State only enforce the law so as to prohibit one type of content. The Congress should prove that the legislation has an intrinsic and essential value to be preserved in the broadcast environment, and that there is no other way to serve that goal except the means chosen. The must-carry clause would not be at serious risk of financial difficulty because of requirement cable television systems to devote a portion of their channels to the transmission of local broadcast stations. In sum, the must-carry provisions do not pose such inherent dangers to free expression, or present such potential for censorship or manipulation, as to justify application of the most exacting level scrutiny of the freedom of speech .

The must-carry provisions are content-neutral. On their face, they distinguish only on the basis of the manner in which messages are transmitted, not on the basis of the messages themselves. By virtue of its ownership of the essential pathway for cable speech, a cable operator can prevent its subscribers from obtaining access to programming it chooses to exclude. A cable operator can thus silence the voice of competing speakers with a mere flick of the switch. It is very hard to regard Section 70 (3) of the Broadcast Act (the must-carry clause of public and religious signals) as content-neutral regulation. The State can place reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech without regard to content. A law that is content-neutral on its face will be treated as a law that is content-based if the individual whom the State wants to punish can show that the State only enforce the law so as to prohibit one type of content. The Congress should prove that the legislation has an intrinsic and essential value to be preserved in the broadcast environment, and that there is no other way to serve that goal except the means chosen. The must-carry clause would not be at serious risk of financial difficulty because of requirement cable television systems to devote a portion of their channels to the transmission of local broadcast stations. In sum, the must-carry provisions do not pose such inherent dangers to free expression, or present such potential for censorship or manipulation, as to justify application of the most exacting level scrutiny of the freedom of speech .

cable television, SO(System Operator), must-carry clause, content- neutral regulation, FCC