Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516474571 Page: 37 Date Filed: 09/16/2022 No. 21-51178 editorial employees” generally includes “determin[ing] the news value of items received” and taking responsibility for the accuracy of the items transmitted. Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103, 127 (1937). And editorial discretion generally comes with concomitant legal responsibility. For example, because of “a newspaper’s editorial judgments in connection with an advertisement,” it may be held liable “when with actual malice it publishes a falsely defamatory” statement in an ad. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Rels., 413 U.S. 376, 386 (1973). But the Platforms strenuously disclaim any reputational or legal responsibility for the content they host. See supra Part III.C.2.a (quoting the Platforms’ adamant protestations that they have no responsibility for the speech they host); infra Part III.D (discussing the Platforms’ representations pertaining to 47 U.S.C. § 230). Second, editorial discretion involves “selection and presentation” of content before that content is hosted, published, or disseminated. See Ark. Educ. Television Comm’n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666, 674 (1998); see also Miami Herald, 418 U.S. at 258 (a newspaper exercises editorial discretion when selecting the “choice of material” to print). The Platforms do not choose or select material before transmitting it: They engage in viewpoint-based censorship with respect to a tiny fraction of the expression they have already disseminated. The Platforms offer no Supreme Court case even remotely suggesting that ex post censorship constitutes editorial discretion akin to ex ante selection. 17 They instead baldly assert that “it is constitutionally irrelevant at what point in time platforms exercise editorial discretion.” Red 17 The Platforms claim Horton v. City of Houston, 179 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 1999), recognized First Amendment rights for organizations that “do not pre-screen submitted programs.” Id. at 190. Horton is wholly irrelevant. It involved a public forum—a public access cable channel—and concerned the First Amendment rights of a different party seeking access to the forum. See id. at 190–91. 37