apers ] ▁from ▁saying ▁anything ▁[ they ] ▁wish " ▁it ▁" ex act s ▁a ▁penalty ▁on ▁the ▁basis ▁of ▁the ▁content ." ▁Because ▁newsp apers ▁are ▁econom ically ▁finite ▁enter pr ises , ▁" edit ors ▁may ▁conclude ▁that ▁the ▁safe ▁course ▁is ▁to ▁avoid ▁controvers y ," ▁thereby ▁ch illing ▁speech . ▁Furthermore , ▁the ▁Court ▁held ▁the ▁exercise ▁of ▁editor ial ▁judgment ▁is ▁a ▁protected ▁First ▁Am end ment ▁activity . ▁In ▁effect , ▁this ▁r uling ▁re aff ir med ▁ ▁the ▁constitution al ▁principle ▁of ▁freedom ▁of ▁the ▁press ▁( d etailed ▁in ▁the ▁First ▁Am end ment ) ▁and ▁prevent ed ▁state ▁govern ments ▁from ▁cont rolling ▁the ▁content ▁of ▁the ▁press . ▁ ▁This ▁case ▁illustr ates ▁the ▁medium ▁with ▁the ▁most ▁Constitution al ▁protection — new sp apers — while ▁Red ▁Lion ▁Broadcast ing ▁Co . ▁v . ▁F CC ▁( 1 9 6 9 ) ▁represents ▁the ▁medium ▁with ▁the ▁least ▁protection — bro ad cast , ▁television , ▁and ▁radio . ▁ ▁Miami ▁att orney ▁Dan ▁Paul , ▁long - time ▁att orney ▁for ▁the ▁Miami ▁Her ald , ▁was ▁its ▁chief ▁lawyer ▁in ▁the ▁case . ▁ ▁See ▁also ▁ ▁Red ▁Lion ▁Broadcast ing ▁Co . ▁v . ▁F CC ▁( 1 9 6 9 ) ▁ ▁List ▁of ▁United ▁States ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁cases , ▁volume ▁ 4 1 8 ▁Fair ness ▁doctrine ▁ ▁Right ▁of ▁reply ▁ ▁References ▁ ▁External ▁links ▁ ▁Category : Un ited ▁States ▁Free ▁Spe ech