Kerby Anderson

We seem to be witnessing the decline of governmentally sanctioned compelled speech. Three Supreme Court decisions and the prospect of a new justice on the high court are the reasons. As we discuss so often on the Point of View Radio Talk Show compelled speech is perhaps the worst form of anti-free-speech. It is bad enough to censor an American citizen from being able to express his or her opinion. But it is even worse to force an American citizen to voice, create, or fund contrary ideas or activities. The Supreme Court ruled against the state of Colorado for punishing Christian baker Jack Phillips. He was fined for refusing to use his artistic talents for a homosexual ceremony. Justice Kennedy was appalled that the Colorado bureaucrats described the baker’s faith as “the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use.” The court also ruled against the state of California for mandating that pro-life pregnancy centers must advertise for free abortions. In addition to the majority opinion written by Justice Thomas, was a concurring opinion by Justice Kennedy that encouraged the legislators to go back and read the Bill of Rights. In a third case, the Justices ruled against an Illinois law that forced state employees to subsidize public-employee unions that take political and labor positions contrary to the views of the employees. Justice Alito twice quoted the famous phrase from Thomas Jefferson that “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” The new justice on the court is likely to uphold each one of these precedents and will continue to rule against other examples of compelled speech. That is why it is reasonable to expect to see a decline in these attempts to force people to voice, create, or fund ideas contrary to their deeply held beliefs.