Viewpoint discrimination
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aschlafly (talk | contribs) at 03:21, January 13, 2013. It may differ significantly from current revision.
Viewpoint discrimination, either content-based or speaker-based, is unconstitutional under the First Amendment when done by a government in the United States.
In Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653, 2672 (2011), a 6-3 United States Supreme Court invalidated a Vermont law by finding that it constituted viewpoint discrimination:
- When it enacted § 4631(d), the Vermont Legislature found that the “marketplace for ideas on medicine safety and effectiveness is frequently one-sided in that brand-name companies invest in expensive pharmaceutical marketing campaigns to doctors.” 2007 Vt. Laws No. 80, § 1(4). “The goals of marketing programs,” the legislature said, “are often in conflict with the goals of the state.” § 1(3). The text of § 4631(d), associated legislative findings, and the record developed in the District Court establish that Vermont enacted its law for this end. The State has burdened a form of protected expression that it found too persuasive. At the same time, the State has left unburdened those speakers whose messages are in accord with its own views. This the State cannot do.