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.

Nate Silver has this long and interesting analysis of the process by which statisticians and pollsters make predictions, especially about U.S. presidential elections, with greatest emphasis on 2016.