Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Page Number: 17

14  MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. v. HALLECK 

Opinion of the Court 

that  MNN,  as  a  private  actor,  is  not  subject  to  First 
Amendment  constraints  on  how  it  exercises  editorial 
discretion  over  the  speech  and  speakers  on  its  public 
access channels. 

III 
  Perhaps  recognizing  the  problem  with  their  argument 
that  MNN  is  a  state  actor  under  ordinary  state-action 
principles  applicable  to  private  entities  and  private  prop-
erty,  the  producers  alternatively  contend  that  the  public 
access  channels  are  actually  the  property  of  New  York 
City,  not  the  property  of  Time  Warner  or  MNN.    On  this 
theory,  the  producers  say  (and  the  dissent  agrees)  that 
MNN is in essence simply managing government property 
on behalf of New York City. 
  The  short  answer  to  that  argument  is  that  the  public 
access  channels  are  not  the  property  of  New  York  City.  
Nothing  in  the  record  here  suggests  that  a  government 
(federal,  state,  or  city)  owns  or  leases  either  the  cable 
system  or  the  public  access  channels  at  issue  here.    Both 
Time Warner and MNN are private entities.  Time Warner 
is the cable operator, and it owns its cable network, which 
contains the public access channels.  MNN operates those 
public  access  channels  with  its  own  facilities  and  equip-
ment.    The  City  does  not  own  or  lease  the  public  access 
channels, and the City does not possess a formal easement 
or  other  property  interest  in  those  channels.    The  fran-
chise  agreements  between  the  City  and  Time  Warner  do 
not  say  that  the  City  has  any  property  interest  in  the 
public  access  channels.    On  the  contrary,  the  franchise 
agreements  expressly  place  the  public  access  channels 
“under the jurisdiction” of MNN.  App. 22.  Moreover, the 
producers  did  not  allege  in  their  complaint  that  the  City 
has  a  property  interest  in  the  channels.   And the  produc-
ers have not cited any basis in state law for such a conclu-
sion.    Put  simply,  the  City  does  not  have  “any  formal