Whether Plaintiffs' tort claim, based on Defendant municipality's decision to allow an independent programmer to proceed with defaming Plaintiffs on public access television, stems from cable service regulation and is therefore defeated by the immunity clause found in 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.

Yes. Defendant municipality's decision to allow the defamatory program to continue on public access television was based on the regulation of cable service and thus 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a) provided Defendant municipality with immunity against Plaintiffs' tort claim.

Defendant municipality provided local community with public access television. An independent programmer defamed Plaintiffs during his television program broadcasted by the municipality's public access station. Despite complaints, Defendant municipality refused to stop the defamatory broadcasts.

Plaintiffs filed suit against Town Board members, the Woodstock Public Access Committee (WPAC), WPAC members, and the station manager of the channel. Together this group comprised "Defendant municipality". Plaintiffs also filed suit against the independent programmer. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages. The independent programmer defaulted and the supreme court entered a judgment against him. The supreme court ruled that 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a) provided Defendant municipality with immunity against Plaintiffs' tort claim for monetary damages. The appellate division affirmed by unanimous decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Court of Appeals based its decision on the plain meaning of 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a), reasoning that the statute provides a municipality with immunity from claims for monetary damages stemming from "any" cable television regulatory decisions. The Court also cited 47 U.S.C. § 531 as providing a municipality with authority to decide upon defamation issues arising from public access television programs. The Court determined that municipal defendants were engaged in the regulation of cable service by allowing the programmer to continue his broadcasts. Additionally, the Court of Appeals stated that the legislative history of 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a) did not curtail the immunity allocated to the municipality.

Justice Levine dissented from the Court's reliance upon the plain meaning doctrine, reasoning that to base a judicial decision solely on a statute's plain meaning contradicts the United States Supreme Court's perspective of constitutional federalism, citing Medtronic, Inc. v Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996).