Compelled Speech & Anonymous Speech

Question 1

Compelled Speech

Answer 1

First amendment protects against someone being compelled to speak against their will (West Virginia Board of Education). Content-based restrictions compelling individuals to speak are subject to strict scrutiny, even if they involve professional speech (National Federation of Family and Life Advocates). Forcing someone to engage in creative expression in violation of their religious beliefs constitutes compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment (303 Creative).

Question 2

West Virginia Board of Edu v. Barnette

Answer 2

In Barnette, the Court struck down a WV law that ordered students to salute the flag and imposed jail time on parents who disallowed their children to salute to the flag at school. The Court held that the law was unconstitutional because saluting to a flag was compelling speech.

Question 2

National Federation of Family and Life Advocates vs. Becerra

Answer 2

In Bacerra, the Court struck down a CA law that required “crisis pregnancy centers” to make disclosures about how to obtain low cost or free reproductive healthcare because it was an impermissible content-based restriction aimed at crisis pregnancy centers, and was not narrowly tailored since there are other ways that residents can obtain this information and the government required their own wording on the notices.

Question 3

303 Creative v. Elenis

Answer 3

In 303 Creative, a website designer filed a pre enforcement challenge when she did not want to make a wedding website for same sex couples in violation of CO’s antidiscrimination law. The Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional and making the website designer create a website for a same-sex couple was compelled speech.

Question 4

Anonymous Speech

Answer 4

Any restrictions on anonymous speech must survive strict scrutiny. (McIntyre).

Question 5

McIntyre v. Ohio

Answer 5

Facts: Ohio law prohibits the distribution of anonymous campaign material and imposes a fine for violating this provision. Margaret McIntyre distributes material in violation of this provision and is fined $100. She challenges the law on First Amendment grounds.
Holding/Rule: Unconstitutional