Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Page Number: 29

10  MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. v. HALLECK 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

like sidewalks and parks, a public forum exists only where 
the government has deliberately opened up the setting for 
speech  by  at  least  a  subset  of  the  public.    Cornelius,  473 
U. S.,  at  802.    “Accordingly,  the  Court  has  looked  to  the 
policy  and  practice  of  the  government,”  as  well  as  the 
nature  of  the  property  itself,  “to  ascertain  whether  it 
intended  to  designate  a  place  not  traditionally  open  to 
assembly  and  debate  as  a  public  forum.”    See  ibid.    For 
example,  a  state  college  might  make  its  facilities  open  to 
student groups, or a municipality might open up an audi-
torium for certain public meetings.  See id., at 802–803. 
  The requisite governmental intent is manifest here.  As 
noted above, New York State regulations require that the 
channels be made available to the public “on a first-come, 
first-served,  nondiscriminatory  basis.”    16  N. Y.  Codes, 
Rules & Regs. §895.4(c)(4); see also §§895.4(c)(8)–(9).  The 
State,  in  other  words,  mandates  that  the  doors  be  wide 
open  for  public  expression.    MNN’s  contract  with  Time 
Warner follows suit.  App. 23.  And that is essentially how 
MNN  itself  describes  things.    See  Tr.  of Oral Arg.  9  (“We 
do not prescreen videos.  We—they come into the door.  We 
put  them  on  the  air”).7    These  regulations  “evidenc[e]  a 
clear  intent  to  create  a  public  forum.”    Cornelius,  473 
U. S., at 802. 

B 
  If New York’s public-access channels are a public forum, 
it  follows  that  New  York  cannot  evade  the  First  Amend-
ment by contracting out administration of that forum to a 

—————— 

14–15. 

7 New York may be uncommon (as it often is); public-access channels 
in other States may well have different policies and practices that make 
them  more  like  government  speech  than  constitutional  forums.    See 
Brief  for  Respondents 30–31;  Brief  for  American  Civil  Liberties  Union 
et al. as Amici Curiae 13–15.  New York’s scheme, however, is the only 
one before us.