Official Logo MTSU Freedom Of Speech
  • HOME
  • ABOUT
  • ENCYCLOPEDIA
  • NEWS
  • IN THE CLASSROOM
  • DONATE

Compelled Speech

The compelled speech doctrine sets out the principle that the government cannot force an individual or group to support certain expression. Thus, the First Amendment not only limits the government from punishing a person for his speech, it also prevents the government from punishing a person for refusing to articulate, advocate, or adhere to the government’s approved messages.


The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) is the classic example of the compelled speech doctrine at work.


In this case, the Court ruled that a state cannot force children to stand, salute the flag, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The justices held that school children who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, for religious reasons, had a First Amendment right not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the U.S. flag.


In oft-cited language, Justice Robert H. Jackson asserted, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”


Read more Supreme Court cases on compelled speech:

  • Knox v. Service Employees International Union (2012)

In Knox v. Service Employees International Union (2012), the Court struck
down a union’s imposition of special dues applied to nonunion members to
oppose two referenda.

  • Masterpiece Cakeshop v.Colorado Civil Rights Commission(2018)

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) used the
First Amendment to uphold the right of the store owner to refuse to custom
design a cake for a same-sex wedding.

  • Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006)

Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006) said that
conditioning funding on allowing military recruiters on campus did not
violate the First Amendment.

  • 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023)

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. ___ (2023), the Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that a website designer had a First Amendment free speech right to refuse to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. This decision reversed the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis,

  • National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018)

Advocates demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court early Monday, June 25, 2018. The justices handed down a decision that said crisis licensed pregnancy centers in California could not be forced to inform patients that the state ofers programms with several family planning services, including abortion. Many of the facilities were established by pro-life organizations

  • Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (2018)

Illinois government employee Mark Janus, center, turns after thanking supporters outside the Supreme Court, Monday, Feb. 26, 2018. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2018 that an Illinois law that allows unions representing government employees to collect fees from workers who choose not to join is impermissible under the First Amendment as a form of

  • Arkansas Times v. Waltrip (8th Circuit) (2022)

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022 upheld an Arkansas law that
requires contractors with the state to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel
despite challenges that it violated free speech.

  • Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. II(2020)

The Supreme Court in 2020 ruled that First Amendment speech protections did
not apply to foreign organizations in affirming a law barring AIDS funding
to organizations that refused to affirm certain beliefs in Agency for
International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.
II.

  • Jarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin (2020)

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a First Amendment challenge to a
requirement that attorneys pay dues to a state bar association in Wisconsin
to support programs they disagreed with. Their compelled speech argument in
Jarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin was rejected by lower courts.

  • Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society (2013)

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society (2013)
said barring funding for NGOs not explicitly opposed to certain policies
violated the First Amendment.

ABOUT US

Footer logo

The Free Speech Center is a nonpartisan, nonprofit public policy center dedicated to building understanding of the five freedoms of the First Amendment through education, information and engagement.

freespeechcenter@mtsu.edu

FEATURE POSTS

Happy birthday to us – on the day that cleared a road to freedom

Memorial Day: Honoring those who gave all for our freedoms

White House Correspondents’ Dinner: levity, gravity, and a toast to the First Amendment

The origins of academic freedom in the U.S.

LINKS

  • Home
  • In The Classroom
  • First Amendment Ads
  • First Amendment Encyclopedia
  • Publications
  • Contact
  • Donate

NEWSLETTER

Subscribe our newsletter for latest news.
Let's stay updated!

SUBSCRIBE