Replies

It seems to me that the government has no more right to compel speech than to restrict speech.

The same First Amendment which protects freedom of speech also protects the free exercise of religion but forbids its establishment. By way of corollary, speech should be protected from establishment, that is, compulsion.

So I am opposed to punishing a baker for failing to decorate with anti-gay slogans just as much as I am opposed to forcing a baker to decorate with pro-gay slogans or symbols.

An interesting question arises when we extend the principle: can we permit the telephone company to decline to transport speech it disapproves of on its lines? The telegraph, the Internet provider? Harder question, should we permit Google to discriminate in its search engine based on religious or ideological preferences? May we require the telephone company or Google to discriminate?

The First Amendment, even as applied to the states by the 14th, prohibits the government from restricting speech it does not prohibit individuals from restricting speech. If we are talking about a common provider with monopolistic phone lines etc. we can at least argue that these institutions are if not agents of the government at least entities which could not exist without provision of government and so are somehow subject to the considerations which restrict the government contained in the First Amendment. Does Google's impact on interstate commerce justify regulating how it operates? As a matter of practical reality, there is no longer any activity undertaken (or refrained from) by mankind not subject to control by Congress as part of interstate commerce.

But the question is not what is the current state of departure from the Constitution but what is the right principle?

Regarding your “interesting question” question...

As you note, the government can become implicated in 1st Amendment-type of interactions between non-governmental participants (e.g. licensing the airwaves, public businesses)- usually where one of the participants wants to force the other to do / not do something opposed by the other. The question - what is the “right principle” may be decided more by practicality than by principle.

The cake baker’s speech or religious beliefs can be controlled quite easily by financial penalties - up to the point of shutting down a business. Today it is not feasible for e telephone company to listen to all calls. It is also not technically practical to be able to identify and control all speech that it won’t carry. Voice recognition technology,, as good as it may seem is not there...yet. Google falls somewhere in between and China is one of the leaders of the pack in controlling internet content - and that control starts with the search words in the search engine.

Maybe another question to be considered when answering the question - What is the right principle? - should practicality / feasibility be a deciding factor in a society where individual freedom needs to be protected from government overreach and others seeking to use the government to control others’ thoughts, speech and religious beliefs?

This new case in Colorado is a reaction, a pushing back. It would not have arisen but for the case that preceded it. It goes to the heart of the left’s justification for using the government to force another to bake a cake or ruin him financially.