The Supreme Court Is Considering Whether the Government Can Dodge the First Amendment by Outsourcing Its Power
The First Amendment bars the government from censoring speech that it doesn’t like. That rule also goes for a private organization that takes on a government role. But when exactly is an organization considered a stand-in for the government? The Supreme Court will soon hear a to decide.
Before smartphones, the internet, and digital cameras, it wasn’t easy to get your videos in front of a mass audience. But in some places, there was one surefire way: public access cable TV.
For decades, various state and local governments have required cable companies to set aside channels for public use. These channels have become tools for creative exploration and provide artists, educators, and activists a platform to speak directly to their communities. They’re a home for everything from talk shows to music videos to stream-of-consciousness rants on any subject you can think of.
As New York City is a hub for artistic self-expression, it makes sense that its “” has reflected the creative of the city. A nonprofit called Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN) operates the public access channels for the borough. By law, it must broadcast all legal content that it gets in the order received.
Several years ago, New York artists and activists DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Papoleto Melendez produced a video and submitted it to MNN, which aired it once but then banned it because it supposedly threatened the guards who work at MNN’s building. The network also suspended Halleck for one year and Melendez for life from submitting content, so they sued MNN for violating their free speech rights.
Not coincidentally, Halleck and Melendez, while strong supporters of public access channels, have long been vocal critics of MNN. They pushed back against its decision to give huge raises to its executives while at the same time cutting off funding for media grants to the community. And “,” the video they sought to air, criticized the network for its refusal to allow them entry to the opening of its new community center.
It is well established that the government cannot censor protected speech, a principle especially important when that speech criticizes the government. But, in general, a private TV network can run or not run whatever content it likes.
So which rule does MNN fall under?
The “state action doctrine” asks whether conduct can be fairly attributed to the state or to a private party. As we argue in our friend-of-the-court brief supporting Halleck and Melendez, in this case, MNN’s broadcast decisions are state action. New York City has implemented its very specific vision for public access channels through MNN. Because the city’s first-come, first-served policy leaves MNN no room to decide what to broadcast, or even in what order to broadcast videos, it has made the network a virtual arm of the government. That means that the First Amendment applies to MNN, and it cannot pick and choose videos based on what’s in them.
The government can’t shirk its constitutional responsibilities by delegating power to private entities. Nor can it avoid its constitutional obligations by creating rules or entering contracts that leave a private entity with essentially no decisions to make at all. The First Amendment would mean little if the government could simply avoid it by outsourcing its power to private entities to decide what is worthy of public discourse and what must be silenced.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.