20 MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC ALITO, J., concurring in judgment affected by the speech it [is] forced to accommodate.” FAIR, 547 U. S., at 63. In core examples of expressive compilations, such as a book containing selected articles, chapters, stories, or poems, this requirement is easily satisfied. But in other situations, it may be hard to identify any message that would be affected by the inclusion of particular thirdparty speech. Two precedents that the majority tries to downplay, if not forget, are illustrative. The first is PruneYard, which I have already discussed. The PruneYard Court rejected the mall’s First Amendment claim because “[t]he views expressed by members of the public in passing out pamphlets or seeking signatures for a petition [were] not likely [to] be identified with those of the owner.” 447 U. S., at 87. And if those who perused the handbills or petitions were not likely to make that connection, any message that the mall owner intended to convey would not be affected. The decision in FAIR rested on similar reasoning. In that case, the Court did not dispute the proposition that the law schools’ refusal to host military recruiters expressed the message that the military should admit and retain gays and lesbians. But the Court found no First Amendment violation because, as in PruneYard, it was unlikely that the views of the military recruiters “would be identified with” those of the schools themselves, and consequently, hosting the military recruiters did not “sufficiently interfere with any message of the school.” 547 U. S., at 64–65; contra, ante, at 25 (“[T]his Court has never hinged a compiler’s First Amendment protection on the risk of misattribution.”).18 —————— 18 To be sure, in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 655 (1994), we held that the First Amendment applied even though there was “little risk��� of misattribution in that case. But that is only because the claimants in that case had already shown that the Cable Act affected the quantity or reach of the messages that they communicated