I applaud the Supreme Court for considering the possibility of a non-state, "State actor" who might be held to the first amendment prohibitions normally reserved to the state. However, I consider them terribly biased as soon as they throw in the word "traditionally", especially in an area that is totally driven by technology. To me it would seem that the issue has more to do with a monopoly on the channels of communication, than tradition.
Regardless of where you come down on that issue, it is worth pointing out that if you are a proponent of public television, wanting to insure a wide range of views, then you need to insist that your public television is publicly run and not contracted out to a private operator. What this case says is that as soon as you contract it out, the private operator is no longer bound by the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. ___ (2019)
Facts - Public Access channel user sues Public Access Channel operator alleging that ViewPoint-based Suppression of speech is unconstitutional.
Holding - NOT a violation of First Amendment, because Public Access operator is NOT a state actor.
Background - In a prior case, the Supreme Court created a concept of state actor which could be applied to organizations that exercise a function "traditionally exclusively reserved for the State". If this concept is activated, then the court is willing to apply the prohibitions on the restriction of speech, which usually apply only to the state, to the state actor as well. Applying this to a Public Access television operator might seem logical, but the Supreme Court said no. The only cases in which it has been used successfully have been, Private Prisons, Public Charter Schools, and Amtrak.