Task: Text Completion
Input (English): 1068 (1952) (free speech and equal protection); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948) (equal protection). The government argues that the parts of the regulations authorizing cable operators to deny access to indecent material do not trigger First or Fifth Amendment analysis because a private cable operator — not the government — would be denying access to indecent material. See, e.g., Respondents’ Brief at 16. However, even where it is the decision of a private person which ultimately triggers the abridgment of speech, or effects the challenged discrimination, the state may nevertheless be held responsible if it significantly encouraged the private actor to commit the infringement. See, e.g., Franz v. United States, 707 F.2d 582, 592 n. 38 (D.C.Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). We hold that section 10 significantly 
 Holding statements: (A) holding governments encouragement through witness protection program of mothers decision to keep children from father constituted state action (B) holding evidence legally and factually sufficient under sections d and e to terminate mothers parental rights based in part on evidence that mother placed children with father who lived transient lifestyle with children (C) holding evidence supported termination of mothers parental rights where among other factors mother knowingly allowed abusive and sexually deviant father to have access to children (D) holding evidence insufficient to terminate mothers parental rights under section c because mother made arrangements for adequate support of children evidence showed mother left children with father who maintained steady employment and adequately supported children mother knew that father would provide adequate support and mother left children pursuant to agreed divorce decree (E) holding fathers pleadings representing himself to be the father of the children constituted a judicial admission
Output (English): (A)