The television commission's decision to exclude a third-party candidate from a televised debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, both candidates of major public broadcasters, raises quest

In the case of the Television Commission vs. Forbes in 1998, defending the television commission's right to exclude a third-party candidate doesn't necessarily violate the candidate's right to free speech. Firstly, the Supreme Court has determined that journalists and broadcasters, even those working for public entities, are not considered state actors bound by the First Amendment. This gives networks broad editorial discretion in the curation and presentation of news. Secondly, allowing unrestricted access to all candidates could potentially lead to chaos and over-representation, stripping debates of any substantive value. Thirdly, a television commission has the right to establish fair criteria to determine who can participate in debates. Lastly, it is necessary to consider that the right to free speech does not oblige television stations to accommodate all views; instead, it prohibits the government from hindering the expression of those views. Therefore, denying one candidate’s participation does not violate their right to free speech, but is, instead, an exercise of editorial judgement.