Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf
Page Number: 13

10  MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. v. HALLECK 

Opinion of the Court 

  In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a tradi-
tional, exclusive public function and does not alone trans-
form  private  entities  into  state  actors  subject  to  First 
Amendment constraints. 
  If  the  rule  were  otherwise,  all  private  property  owners 
and  private  lessees  who  open  their  property  for  speech 
would  be  subject  to  First  Amendment  constraints  and 
would  lose  the  ability  to  exercise  what  they  deem  to  be 
appropriate  editorial  discretion  within  that  open  forum.  
Private  property  owners  and  private  lessees  would  face 
the  unappetizing  choice  of  allowing  all  comers  or  closing 
the  platform  altogether.    “The  Constitution  by  no  means 
requires  such  an  attenuated  doctrine  of  dedication  of 
private property to public use.”  Hudgens, 424 U. S., at 519 
(internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    Benjamin  Franklin 
did  not  have  to  operate  his  newspaper  as  “a  stagecoach, 
with  seats  for  everyone.”    F.  Mott,  American  Journalism 
55  (3d  ed.  1962).    That  principle  still  holds  true.    As  the 
Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property own-
ers  providing  a  forum  for  speech  are  constrained  by  the 
First  Amendment  would  be  “to  create  a  court-made  law 
wholly  disregarding  the  constitutional  basis  on  which 
private  ownership  of  property  rests  in  this  country.”    424 
U. S.,  at  517  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    The 
Constitution does not disable private property owners and 
private  lessees  from  exercising  editorial  discretion  over 
speech and speakers on their property.2 
  The  producers  here  are  seeking  in  effect  to  circumvent 
this Court’s case law, including Hudgens.  But Hudgens is 
sound, and we therefore reaffirm our holding in that case.3 

—————— 

2 A distinct question not raised here is the degree to which the First 
Amendment  protects  private  entities  such  as  Time  Warner  or  MNN 
from  government  legislation  or  regulation  requiring  those  private 
entities to open their property for speech by others.  Cf. Turner Broad-
casting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 636–637 (1994). 

3 In  Cornelius  v.  NAACP  Legal  Defense  &  Educational  Fund,  Inc.,