The case of Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1993 revolved around the constitutionality of certain provisions within the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. The act required cable television systems to carry local commercial and non-commercial television stations, also known as "must-carry" rules. Turner Broadcasting System, along with other cable operators and programmers, challenged these requirements arguing that they violated their First Amendment rights by forcing them to carry speech they did not wish to convey without a compelling government interest justifying such content-based regulation of speech. In its decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged that while the must-carry provisions constituted content-neutral regulations which served important governmental interests unrelated to suppression of free speech - namely preserving access for over-the-air viewers who could not afford or did not want cable service; promoting widespread dissemination of information from multiple sources; and fostering fair competition in the market for television programming - it remanded back down because there was insufficient evidence on record demonstrating that these rules were narrowly tailored enough so as not unduly burden protected speech.

In the Supreme Court case Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al., 1993, the dissenting opinion argued that the must-carry rules violated First Amendment rights of cable operators by forcing them to carry certain broadcast stations without their consent. The dissenters believed that this was a content-based regulation and should be subjected to strict scrutiny review - a legal standard used in cases where there is potential infringement on fundamental freedoms such as free speech or religion. They contended that these regulations did not serve any compelling government interest nor were they narrowly tailored to achieve those interests, thus failing under strict scrutiny analysis. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's view about scarcity of channels being an issue because technological advancements had increased channel capacity significantly since earlier rulings on similar issues.