And last summer, SCOTUS in an opinion written by Justice Kagan ruled that social media sites also have a 1A right to choose what viewpoints they wished to air and those they did not.

Two final points: 1) Even "broadcast stations," the Doctrine is likely unconstitutional today. As stated, SCOTUS permitted it due to the "scarcity" of the "broadcasting medium." In donig so, they noted that if that "scarcity" issue went away, then so would the justification ...

for the Doctrine. Given the dwindling use of that medium and the increasingly exponential increase in avenues for viewpoint expression on cable channels, social media sites, and podcasts, it's likely SCOTUS would rule differently today. Some courts were even suggesting it in the 1990's ...

with regard to the "personal attack" rule which was the rule at issue in Red Lion and was not repealed with the rest of the Doctrine but ended in 2000. transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass...

Second, SCOTUS has made clear that while technology may change, 1A protection of speech or "expressive activity" does not. Just because a new media comes along, it doesn't mean that 1A won't protect that medium.