free speech
09 - 12/22 /17:31
Monday 12/5/22 the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case 303 Creative v. Elenis. The government of Colorado claims Lorie Smith, a wedding website designer, must create custom websites for same-sex weddings. The State claims the right to compel Ms Smith to create expressions that violate her convictions.
The 10th US Court of Appeals acknowledged that forcing Ms Smith to express a state-imposed message infringes on her 1st Amendment rights.
The 10th US Court of Appeals acknowledged that forcing Ms Smith to express a state-imposed message infringes on her 1st Amendment rights.
But that court justified the infringement. The Court of Appeals ruled her designs are so creative that they are “unavailable elsewhere,” making Ms. Smith “similar to a monopoly.”
Yet the US Supreme Court has repeatedly held that actual monopolies are protected by the 1st Amendment. How can Ms. Smith have fewer rights?
In 1943, while Americans died on WW2 battlefields, the Supreme Court ruled public schools could not compel the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses to salute the US flag or recite the pledge of allegiance.
Then Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, “If there is any star fixed in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
In 1943 the ACLU supported the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Today the ACLU argues that Colorado’s anti-discrimination law overrules free expression.
Curiously, the ACLU defends Big Tech from government efforts to regulate the way they censors user-posted content. According to the ACLU, “whatever the vices or virtues of any social media firm’s particular choices,” the state may not compel “conformity with a government-imposed view.”
Social-media platforms are open to the public. They purport to be viewpoint-neutral. In contrast, Ms. Smith creates only websites consistent with her beliefs, her areas of expertise or her personal passions.
Social-media platforms promote themselves as platforms for the speech of others. Ms. Smith always advertised that she designs only those websites that are expressions of her own genius.
So the 1st Amendment shields Big Tech from conformity to government-imposed views. But the 1st Amendment does not protect small entrepreneurs from being compelled to express government approved messages.
Am I missing something?
God's best to one and all
Yet the US Supreme Court has repeatedly held that actual monopolies are protected by the 1st Amendment. How can Ms. Smith have fewer rights?
In 1943, while Americans died on WW2 battlefields, the Supreme Court ruled public schools could not compel the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses to salute the US flag or recite the pledge of allegiance.
Then Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, “If there is any star fixed in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
In 1943 the ACLU supported the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Today the ACLU argues that Colorado’s anti-discrimination law overrules free expression.
Curiously, the ACLU defends Big Tech from government efforts to regulate the way they censors user-posted content. According to the ACLU, “whatever the vices or virtues of any social media firm’s particular choices,” the state may not compel “conformity with a government-imposed view.”
Social-media platforms are open to the public. They purport to be viewpoint-neutral. In contrast, Ms. Smith creates only websites consistent with her beliefs, her areas of expertise or her personal passions.
Social-media platforms promote themselves as platforms for the speech of others. Ms. Smith always advertised that she designs only those websites that are expressions of her own genius.
So the 1st Amendment shields Big Tech from conformity to government-imposed views. But the 1st Amendment does not protect small entrepreneurs from being compelled to express government approved messages.
Am I missing something?
God's best to one and all