Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

Cite as:  587 U. S. ____ (2019) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

II 
  Ratified  in  1791,  the  First  Amendment  provides  in 
relevant part that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridg-
ing  the  freedom  of  speech.”    Ratified  in  1868,  the  Four-
teenth  Amendment  makes  the  First  Amendment’s  Free 
Speech  Clause  applicable  against  the  States:  “No  State 
shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall  abridge  the 
privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States; 
nor  shall  any  State  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty,  or 
property,  without  due  process  of  law  . . . .”    §1.    The  text 
and  original  meaning  of  those  Amendments,  as  well  as 
this  Court’s  longstanding  precedents,  establish  that  the 
Free  Speech  Clause  prohibits  only  governmental  abridg-
ment of speech.  The Free Speech Clause does not prohibit 
private  abridgment  of  speech.    See,  e.g.,  Denver  Area  Ed. 
Telecommunications  Consortium,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  518  U. S. 
727,  737  (1996)  (plurality  opinion);  Hurley  v.  Irish-
American  Gay,  Lesbian  and  Bisexual  Group  of  Boston, 
Inc.,  515  U. S.  557,  566  (1995);  Hudgens  v.  NLRB,  424 
U. S.  507,  513  (1976);  cf.  Miami Herald  Publishing  Co.  v. 
Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 256 (1974). 
  In  accord  with  the  text  and  structure  of  the  Constitu-
tion,  this  Court’s  state-action  doctrine  distinguishes  the 
government  from  individuals  and  private  entities.    See 
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic 
Assn.,  531  U. S.  288,  295–296  (2001).    By  enforcing  that 
constitutional  boundary  between  the  governmental  and 
the  private,  the  state-action  doctrine  protects  a  robust 
sphere of individual liberty. 
  Here,  the  producers  claim  that  MNN,  a  private  entity, 
restricted  their  access  to  MNN’s  public  access  channels 
because of the content of the producers’ film.  The produc-
ers  have  advanced  a  First  Amendment  claim  against 
MNN.  The threshold problem with that First Amendment 
claim is a fundamental one: MNN is a private entity. 
  Relying  on  this  Court’s  state-action  precedents,  the