viewpoints to newspapers. The decision was 5 years after Red Lion in 1974 when SCOTUS was still very liberal. SCOTUS held that the 1A protects media right to express its own viewpoint and that right was violated when the gov't compelled speech (in the form of opposing viewpoints) that the ...
newspaper didn’t want to publish. The ruling was not premised on any unique factors applicable to newspapers. Last summer, SCOTUS held that social media sites also held such 1A rights and couldn’t be compelled by the gov’t to display viewpoints they didn’t want.
Therefore due ro the above, we know that the Doctrine application of “brodcast stations” (of which cable channels are not) was an exception to 1A and that it could never be applied constitutionally to any other medium.
And finally 1A does guarantee free speech in the way you claim, asserting that an outlet being a propaganda machine “stifles free speech.” 1A only protects from government infringement of free speech. Private entities cannot violate 1A. As the cases above show, they can’t be required to …
to allow “free speech.” Doing so is the violation of 1A.