On September 19, the Ninth Circuit enjoined a San Francisco ordinance that compels print ads for sugary drinks to carry this statement: “Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco.” The statement must be bordered in black and must be so large as to comprise 20% of the square area of the ad.
This decision is one of a long line of cases that prohibit compelled speech. In other words, the free speech part of the First Amendment not only protects the right to speak, but the right not to speak, especially if the compelled speech is not indisputably true. This precedent, like similar precedents, will help the plaintiffs in Soltysik v Padilla, the lawsuit pending in the Ninth Circuit on California ballot labels for members of unqualified parties. Under the California election law, if they are running for Congress or partisan state office, they must have “party preference: none” printed next to their names, even if they do have a party preference. The plaintiff in Soltysik wants “party preference: Socialist” to be his ballot label. He is a registered Socialist. But the laws forces him to say he has no party preference.
The recent decision on San Francisco’s compelled speech can be read at this link. The case is American Beverage Association v City and County of San Francisco, 16-16072.
What about those *Nutrition Facts* on food containers ???
— plus all the required stuff on containers for cigarettes, medicine, car/truck products, etc. ???
Is there ANY thing (tangible or intangible) that control freak statists do NOT want to control 24/7 ???
See the commies in 1917-1991 USSR and the nazis in 1933-1945 Germany.
To turn Demo Rep on his head, I think it’s not only provable but proven on the health issues, and we do nationally require cigarette warnings.
I’d argue that Soltysik, and others, actually have better standing if SCOTUS has federalized the constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder.
The decision talks about that. The decision makes a distinction between commercial ad compelled speech that is considered true by everyone, versus the San Francisco requirement which the decision says is not entirely factual and in any event not universally accepted as true, even by experts.
1st Amdt
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
—-
NO law *** abridging the freedom of speech
How many dictionaries in 1789-1791 defining *NO* and *abridging* [from *abridge*], *freedom* and *speech* ???
ZERO mention of *compelled speech* — one more dreamed up PERVERSION phrase by the SCOTUS HACKS.
How about *compelled* press ??? — including having *compelled* stuff in BAN — by order of some robot party hack in the USA White House, CA Guv house, SF mayor house, etc. ???
For folks with some brain cells —
see the book — Sources of our Liberties edited by Richard L. Perry (ABA, 1959) — where Amdts 1-8 came from.
Clue – think EVIL rotted Brits. – esp in 1761-1783 – the King George III gangsters/tyrants —
as EVIL as anything in the Stalin or Hitler regimes.
Esp. remember the captured 1775-1783 USA military folks who rotted to death in the Brit death ships in occupied New York City.
Could requiring a candidate to reveal his or her tax return in order to run for office be construed as “compelled speech”?
No. Forcing an individual to reveal something publicly that he has already said is not the same thing as forcing him or her to say it in the first place.
SG – item 2 above
How much of STATISM is *** provable but proven *** — by killers like Stalin, Hitler, etc.
See earlier *religion* types with their *** provable but proven *** stuff and their killer purges and tortures [aka Inquisitions, etc.]
— esp the infamous Thirty Years War in Europe 1618-1649 [including the English Civil War in 1642-1649]
— causing lots of folks to flee to North America — to get the Hell away from the killer freaks
— causing the religion language in the 1st Amdt.
@ Richard:
It could be argued that being required to file an income tax in the first place is “compelled speech.”