Final answer:
The Supreme Court eventually provided full First Amendment protections to online media by striking down parts of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, despite historically being more cautious with broadcast media. This aligned with the broader trend of supporting freedom of expression online, where there is less regulation compared to traditional print and broadcast media.
Step-by-step explanation:
Throughout history, The Supreme Court was slow to extend First Amendment protections to some media. In particular, by striking down provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the Court expedited the extension of full protection to online media, which includes the vast, evolving environment of the Internet. This was consistent with precedent that broadly supports freedom of expression, while recognizing certain limitations on print and broadcast media due to concerns such as obscenity, defamation, and public safety.
Freedom of the Press, as established by the First Amendment and subsequent Supreme Court rulings, has typically provided print media with extensive leeway to report news as they see fit. However, broadcast media, due to its pervasive nature, has historically received less protection, as outlined in cases like Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation. The Internet, though, by virtue of its unique characteristics, has largely remained unregulated, and the Supreme Court rulings have contributed to upholding a more unfettered ability for online platforms to facilitate expression.