Why Should the First Amendment Protect Government Speech When the Government Has Nothing to Say?
It is an uncontroversial fact of political life that the government sometimes must communicate with the public. For several years, however, the Supreme Court has used this uncontroversial fact as a justification for developing a First Amendment doctrine of government speech. This new doctrine does more than simply recognize the government’s authority to speak out on matters of public policy; as envisioned by the Supreme Court, the doctrine also allows the government to silence or coerce the speech of those in the private sector who wish to speak out against the government. In much the same way that private speakers have long been given a First Amendment right to fend off government control of their speech, the government now has been afforded a First Amendment “right” to free speech as well. The question is whether this new “right” is necessary. Both the facts and theory of the Court’s new government speech cases suggest that the answer to this question is no. For the most part, the ca
Related Questions
- For purposes of the First Amendment, free speech is the right to speak without being subject to government restrictions, reprisals, or penalties. What has CEI done to promote free speech?
- Does the First Amendment right to free speech protect people who lie about being war heroes?
- Does the First Amendment Protect Only Political Speech?
