This feels like an overly broad interpretation of the first amendment to me. The first amendment states that government shall make no law abridging the freedom

This feels like an overly broad interpretation of the first amendment to me. The first amendment states that government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, but doesn't specifically address whether it can make a law mandating access to certain forums. The supreme court decision (thank you for the case references btw - this was new to me and I found it to be an interesting read) rejecting the right of access to newspapers feels like overreach to me. I think it could be beneficial to society if forums of a certain audience size and nature might be compelled to provide some limited access to everyone. In the case of newspapers, for example, if they were able to charge a fee for access to cover their costs, bury it on the very last page with a clear disclaimer that it is not their opinion, and even publish their own rebuttal as desired - I don't see this as abridging the newspaper's right to free speech. And I think it could potentially expose people to a more diverse set of opinions than they might otherwise get without such an access mandate.