Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516474571 Page: 35 Date Filed: 09/16/2022 No. 21-51178 Court considers editorial discretion as one relevant consideration when deciding whether a challenged regulation impermissibly compels or restricts protected speech. Take, for example, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (“Turner I”). There the Court noted a cable operator “exercis[es] editorial discretion over which stations or programs to include in its repertoire.” Id. at 636 (quotation omitted). For this reason, among others, the Court concluded that selecting a limited repertoire of cable channels to transmit constitutes First-Amendment-protected speech. See id. at 636–37. Similarly, Miami Herald emphasized newspapers’ “exercise of editorial control and judgment” to support its holding that their close affiliation with the speech they publish gives them the right not to publish “that which reason tells them should not be published.” 418 U.S. at 256, 258 (quotation omitted). But both cases treated editorial discretion as a relevant consideration supporting their legal conclusions about the presence or absence of protected speech. Neither case implied that editorial discretion is itself a freestanding category of constitutionally protected expression. 15 Accordingly, the Platforms cannot invoke “editorial discretion” as if uttering some sort of First Amendment talisman to protect their censorship. Were it otherwise, the shopping mall in PruneYard and law schools in Rumsfeld could have changed the outcomes of those cases by simply asserting a desire to exercise “editorial discretion” over the speech in their forums. Instead, the Platforms must show that Section 7 either coerces them to speak 15 The Platforms’ other cases ostensibly supporting premise one are even farther afield. Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921 (2019), discussed the constitutional limits on editorial discretion in public forums and described the issue in this case as “[a] distinct question not raised here.” Id. at 1931 & n.2. And Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998), simply reiterated Turner I’s conclusion that cable operators’ selection and presentation of programming is speech for First Amendment purposes. Id. at 674. 35