User:Fmega2/sandbox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Corp._v._Halleck

Citation:

“Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. ___ (2019).” Justia Law, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/587/17-1702/#tab-opinion-4109118.

Supreme Court
On February 25, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments. The Justices' questions centered around whether the city had a property interest in MNN's channel space and what precisely New York's "first come, first serve" rule meant practically.

Decision
The Court delivered its 5-4 decision along ideological lines on June 17, 2019, which reversed the Second Circuit's decision and remanded the case to be reheard on its ruling.

Opinion of the Court
Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, finding that MNN could not be considered a state actor in how it operates, and as such, was not bound to protect free speech rights as a state actor would be expected. '''The Court stated that the MNN is immune to the First and Fourteenth amendments the due to its status as a private company. The opinion argues that First and Fourteenth Amendments only apply to “governmental abridgment of speech” and not to “private abridgement of speech” (Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., Hudgens v. NLRB, and Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo). In order for an organization to be seen as governmental, private companies must be a state actor, meaning an organization that exercises “powers traditionally exclusive to the state”, defined from the case Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. and the action must have been originally and solely performed by the government (Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, Evans v. Newton). In conclusion, the opinions states that even though the local government of New York City did give a contract for the MNN to operate these public access channels, since they have been operated by private cable companies from earlier times, the action of operating a public access channel does not meet the criteria of the function being originally and solely performed by the government. The opinion compares itself to cases such as Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, and Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward for broadcast licenses, liquor licences, and corporate charters respectively. '''

'''Justice Kavanaugh also writes that even if a private organization creates a public forum for speech, the fact that it is a private company allows its immunity from the First and Fourteenth Amendments (Hudgens v. NLRB, Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, and Central Hardware Co. v. NLRB). An example Justice Kavanaugh gives is that private organizations such as grocery stores and comedy clubs allow public forums such as bulletin boards or open mic sessions, but only topics that are relevant to these organizations are allowed to be expressed.'''

Dissenting Opinion
The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor believed that MNN “stepped into the City's shoes and thus qualifies as a state actor, subject to the First Amendment like any other."

'''Justice Sotomayor also argues that since New York City laws require that public-access channels be open to all, MNN also took responsibility for this law with the public-access channels. It did not matter whether the City or a private company runs this public forum since the City mandated that the channels be open to all.'''

Aftermath
As the decision was more limited, ruling on the status of MNN rather than whether the actions directly affecting free speech, the case is not expected to have a major impact on social media.

1. Original: In the past, the Supreme Court has not directly ruled that public access televisions systems, which operate on leased channels provided by the government, are not considered public forums, as established by a split ruling in Denver Area Educ. Telecomms. Consortium, Inc. v. F.C.C.[2] Edited: '''In the 1970s, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandated that cable operators leave some channels for public use. However, in 1979, the Supreme Court case Federal Communications Commission v. Midwest Video Corporation ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to institute this order. In 1984, President Reagan signed the Cable Communications Policy allowing state governments to require cable operators to devote some channels for public access. ''' Such television systems have generally been upheld as being private operators rather than a state actor, giving them the ability to limit free speech.

2. Original: The Court delivered its 5-4 decision along ideological lines on June 17, 2019, which reversed the Second Circuit's decision and remanded the case to be reheard on its ruling. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, finding that MNN could not be considered a state actor in how it operates, and as such, was not bound to protect free speech rights as a state actor would be expected.[1] Edited: '''The Court stated that the MNN is immune to the First and Fourteenth amendments the due to its status as a private company. The opinion argues that First and Fourteenth Amendments only apply to “governmental abridgment of speech” and not to “private abridgement of speech” (Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., Hudgens v. NLRB, and Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo). In order for an organization to be seen as governmental, private companies must be a state actor, meaning an organization that exercises “powers traditionally exclusive to the state”, defined from the case Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. and the action must have been originally and solely performed by the government (Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, Evans v. Newton). In conclusion, the opinions states that even though the local government of New York City did give a contract for the MNN to operate these public access channels, since they have been operated by private cable companies from earlier times, the action of operating a public access channel does not meet the criteria of the function being originally and solely performed by the government. The opinion compares itself to cases such as Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, and Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward for broadcast licenses, liquor licences, and corporate charters respectively. '''

'''Justice Kavanaugh also writes that even if a private organization creates a public forum for speech, the fact that it is a private company allows its immunity from the First and Fourteenth Amendments (Hudgens v. NLRB, Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, and Central Hardware Co. v. NLRB). An example Justice Kavanaugh gives is that private organizations such as grocery stores and comedy clubs allow public forums such as bulletin boards or open mic sessions, but only topics that are relevant to these organizations are allowed to be expressed.'''

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor believed that MNN “stepped into the City's shoes and thus qualifies as a state actor, subject to the First Amendment like any other."[12]

'''Justice Sotomayor also argues that since New York City laws require that public-access channels be open to all, MNN also took responsibility for this law with the public-access channels. It did not matter whether the City or a private company runs this public forum since the City mandated that the channels be open to all.'''

Aftermath
As the decision was more limited, ruling on the status of MNN rather than whether the actions directly affecting free speech, the case is not expected to have a major impact on social media.[12]

(Need to write similar summary of Justice Sotomayor’s dissent)