113 “cable television companies use a portion of their available space to reprint (or retransmit) the communications of others, while at the same time providing some original content.” City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc., 476 U.S. 488, 494 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). Through both types of actions—creating “original programming” and choosing “which stations or programs to include in [their] repertoire”—newspapers and cable companies “seek[] to communicate messages on a wide variety of topics and in a wide variety of formats.” Id. In selecting which speech to transmit, newspapers and cable companies engage in editorial discretion. Newspapers have a finite amount of space on their pages and cannot “proceed to infinite expansion of . . . column space.” Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 257 (1974). Accordingly, they pick which articles and editorials to print, both with respect to original content and material produced by others. Those decisions “constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment.” Id. at 258. Similarly, cable operators necessarily make decisions about which programming to make available to subscribers on a system’s channel space. As with newspapers, the “editorial discretion” a cable operator exercises in choosing “which stations or programs to include in its repertoire” means that operators “engage in and transmit speech.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 636 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court therefore applied intermediate First Amendment scrutiny to (but ultimately upheld) must-carry rules constraining the discretion of a cable company concerning which programming to carry on its channel menu. See id. at 661–62. In contrast to newspapers and cable companies, the exercise of editorial discretion is entirely absent with respect