Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
1 byte added ,  23:13, August 10, 2007
m
formatting
Line 28: Line 28:  
On the issue of compelled speech, Justice Thomas stronger than Justice Scalia in defending a [[First Amendment]] right not to pay for something with which one disagrees:<ref>United States v. United Foods, 533 U.S. 405, 418-19 (2001) (Thomas, J., concurring)</ref>
 
On the issue of compelled speech, Justice Thomas stronger than Justice Scalia in defending a [[First Amendment]] right not to pay for something with which one disagrees:<ref>United States v. United Foods, 533 U.S. 405, 418-19 (2001) (Thomas, J., concurring)</ref>
   −
I write separately, however, to reiterate my views that "paying money for the purposes of advertising involves speech," and that "compelling speech raises a First Amendment issue just as much as restricting speech." Id. at 504 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Any regulation that compels the funding of advertising must be subjected to the most stringent First Amendment scrutiny.  
+
:I write separately, however, to reiterate my views that "paying money for the purposes of advertising involves speech," and that "compelling speech raises a First Amendment issue just as much as restricting speech." Id. at 504 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Any regulation that compels the funding of advertising must be subjected to the most stringent First Amendment scrutiny.  
    
Justice Scalia did not join Justice Thomas's concurrence above.
 
Justice Scalia did not join Justice Thomas's concurrence above.
nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
6,781

edits

Navigation menu