FREEDOM OF SPEECH, one of the five rights enshrined in the First Amendment, offers little solace to people silenced by private entities. If an arm of the government is suppressing your speech—on a street corner or in a school, say—you are protected. But a company, club or newspaper unaffiliated with the government has no obligation to let you speak; they can curate ideas within their walls or pages however they like.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor seemed more receptive to Ms Halleck and Mr Melendez’s arguments. Justice Ginsburg said MNN had “no independent judgment about what will air or when it will air”. The broadcaster has “been designated by the city to administer a public forum”, Justice Kagan added, and must be evenhanded in airing content submitted to it by all members of the public.
Two justices, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, were silent, and one, Stephen Breyer, was torn. Laying bare his thinking, Justice Breyer asked a barrage of questions of both sides and told Mr Hughes that he is “not taking a side or the other” as he is “genuinely uncertain” about the right outcome. Some characteristics of the MNN’s charter seem favourable to the plaintiffs’ complaint, he said, ticking off five considerations, while others seem to cut against them.