Acable tv station that is only available to subscribers who pay a fee broadcasts a performance that some viewers consider obscene. what factor would a judge decide how to balance freedom of speech with the public interest in this case? a. the fact that the broadcast speech was only available to a limited audience b. the location where the performance was filmed c. the idea that the public interest is not affected by obscene material d. the fact that the tv station is owned by a wealthy corporation

The correct answer here is A: the fact that the broadcast speech was only available to a limited audience.

Explanation:

When talking about freedom of speech vs. public interest, what judges need to evaluate, when making a ruling about a situation such as this, is how much the public is being affected and to what extent, as in number of people actually being negatively affected, in order to overcome freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, is a right covered by the Constitution, and its protection sometimes supersedes other rights. However, when the affectation is too broad, or can cause damage to other protected rights, depending on how the consequences affect people, and the number of people being affected, then a judge may see fit to curtail, or limit, the freedom of speech. In this case, because it was a limited broadcast, and there is the principle that these viewers could simply decide not to watch, or simply stop paying their subscription, then freedom of speech takes precedence since the damage is limited by numbers.

The fact that the broadcast speech was only available to a limited audience. (APEX Class ;)

no questions on whether they are allowed that right