Talk:Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Anything on who

Anything on who "Cook" was, and the original circumstances of the lawsuit? AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you might ask! I've just added his name & link to the article. And when I have the time I will come back and add some info on the background to the case. Cgingold (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AnonMoos and Cgingold's argument, as this article is nearly incomprehensible without an adequate description of what caused the case to happen. Incidentally, what is the Red Lion Broadcasting Co. anyway?

Here's some background (see paragraph six): http://www.theguardian.com/news/2004/dec/10/guardianobituaries.religion Someone with the time and interest could chase down some more references with this and add to the article -- background on the company and the story behind this ruling would be very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.69.97 (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]