And on the way he expresses a Pragerism much appreciated by libertarians.

In Manhatttan Community Access Corp v Halleck the majority said a public access TV station is not a state actor and therefore not bound by the First Amendment. In his opinion he said "It is sometimes said that the bigger the government the smaller the individual." Swap "individual" for "citizen" and it's a direct quote from Dennis Prager.

Didn't read the dissent by the four liberals seeking to expand the state.

Surprised you feel this way. The First Amendment is a constraint on government power. The opinion theoretically allows the government to avoid that constraint by acting indirectly through a private entity rather than directly as the state.

It gives the state more power, not less.

The opinion was anticipated because many believed it might lay the groundwork for social media censorship. By sidestepping the censorship issue, the Court avoided any implication of how one legally regulates content on Facebook, Twitter and others

Booray said:

---

Surprised you feel this way. The First Amendment is a constraint on government power. The opinion theoretically allows the government to avoid that constraint by acting indirectly through a private entity rather than directly as the state.

It gives the state more power, not less.

The opinion was anticipated because many believed it might lay the groundwork for social media censorship. By sidestepping the censorship issue, the Court avoided any implication of how one legally regulates content on Facebook, Twitter and others

---

This case wanted the state to force a private medium to carry content. Freedom of speech and freedom from state-coerced speech.

"Merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional exclusive public function." I'd like to see Justice Kavanaugh get around his words to allow Congress to regulate Twitter or Facebook.

Bad decision. The relevant free speech interest in this case is that of the individuals creating and receiving the content, not the medium that contracted with the city to provide the infrastructure. This is content-based discrimination by a state actor in a designated public forum.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bad decision. The relevant free speech interest in this case is that of the individuals creating and receiving the content, not the medium that contracted with the city to provide the infrastructure. This is content-based discrimination by a state actor in a designated public forum.

---

We agree on something. The majority would only be correct if private entities were permitted to air an unlimited number of "public access" channels. Since the local government selected one private company to provide this service, the company is a designated public forum.

I wonder if this is the same public access forum that scared the daylights out of me on a business trip to NYC in the late 1980s. Thanks to a flight delay, it was midnight when I finally checked into my hotel in Midtown and turned on the television to find a local weather report. A really nasty ad for an escort service came on. It was so bad I put a chair in front of the door before changing the channell.

The hotel where I usually stayed had been full, so I'd picked another in the same chain about 6 blocks away. That ad made me think that maybe THIS hotel catered to johns rather than business travelers.

Next morning I asked my colleagues at our Manhattan office if I was in a sleaze hotel. "The hotel's fine," they assured me. The problem was that, starting at midnight, the Manhattan public access channel started airing back to back escort service ads, some of them really explicit. Locals were fighting to get them off the air, but they'd been unsuccessful in shutting down the ads. Don't know if they won the battle to stop those ads.

The dissent is a breath of fresh air if only in terms of clarity and style. Have to say I'm not impressed with the quality of Kavanaugh's writing in this opinion.

A win for property rights, the property rights of the corporation overrule any standards mandated by the government. If the govt doesn't like the deal then don't renew the contract.

The government isn't the wronged party. I suspect governments now and in the future will like this decision all too well.

quash said:

---

Booray said:

---

Surprised you feel this way. The First Amendment is a constraint on government power. The opinion theoretically allows the government to avoid that constraint by acting indirectly through a private entity rather than directly as the state.

It gives the state more power, not less.

The opinion was anticipated because many believed it might lay the groundwork for social media censorship. By sidestepping the censorship issue, the Court avoided any implication of how one legally regulates content on Facebook, Twitter and others

---

This case wanted the state to force a private medium to carry content. Freedom of speech and freedom from state-coerced speech.

"Merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional exclusive public function." I'd like to see Justice Kavanaugh get around his words to allow Congress to regulate Twitter or Facebook.

---

That is not my understanding. Plaintiffs sued because the cable operator banned them from appearing on the public access channel. It was the restraint they complained about. Forcing the public access to air them if they were allowed to submit is a different case.

The main point I get out of it is that the cable operator prevented speech. Of course an entirely private entity can do that. But if the government masquerading as a private entity can do that, its a bad day.

Not saying that in this instance the government was masquerading as a private entity, but Kavanaugh's narrow definition of when the government is a state actor opens a lot of doors for the government to do things and not be constrained by the normal constitutional safeguards. I don't see any way of looking at it that is not an expansion of government power.