Jacquerie: “BTW, the term “Compelling State Interest” is a radical leftist construct designed to prevent a sovereign and supposedly free people from making law that reflects our traditions.”
It may (or may not) have originated with leftists, but the idea of a compelling state interest is a legitimate attempt to try and determine how to apply the US Constitution. That’s why we have hundreds of years of the courts trying to figure out how to apply freedom of speech in unusual cases, such as this.
For example, does freedom of speech mean you can shout fire in a crowded theater and not be held liable for what ensues? Ah, one could argue the US Constitution protects that speech, but that would be taking the freedom to the absurd, wouldn’t it?
So the justices have tried to develop tests so that there can be a black and white line in the law. I’m all for that, so long as the burden always falls on the state to prove a restriction is constitutional.
In this particular case, the freedom of speech is protected. It doesn’t say dishonest or honest speech. It says speech.
You think lying isn’t protected. OK, so draw a line, develop a constitutional test, that can be applied here that doesn’t completely subvert the First Amendment protections. Or, are you seriously implying the government could make any deception whatsoever a federal crime????
Our Constitution put into practice the concept of Natural Law as espoused in the Declaration of Independence. It is only in the context of Natural Law that our Declaration and Constitution form a coherent whole. While I do claim to be a classical philosopher, I have read enough what our Framer's read to understand what and why they did what they did.
FWIW, the basic sources of my point of view are:
Levin's "Libery & Tyranny," Budziszewski's "Written on the Heart," and "A Miracle That Changed The World," by Skousen.