Post by bswiv on May 31, 2024 6:52:59 GMT -5
Justice Sotomayor writing for a UNAMIOUS Supreme Court.......
She is quite clear here.......
We forget how often The Court gets to these things in a unified way. A good thing to be reminded of it now and again.
That last bit there is something of a foundational concept, implicit in it being that the centralized power of government is a dangerous thing.
The NRA plausibly alleged that respondent violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress gun-promotion advocacy. Pp. 8–20. (a) At the heart of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause is the recognition that viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society. When government officials are “engaging in their own expressive conduct,” though, “the Free Speech Clause has no application.” Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460, 467. “When a government entity embarks on a course of action, it necessarily takes a particular viewpoint and rejects others,” and thus does not need to “maintain viewpoint-neutrality when its officers and employees speak about that venture.” Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. 218, 234. While a government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs in the hopes of persuading others, she may not use the power of her office to punish or suppress disfavored expression.
She is quite clear here.......
We forget how often The Court gets to these things in a unified way. A good thing to be reminded of it now and again.
That last bit there is something of a foundational concept, implicit in it being that the centralized power of government is a dangerous thing.
The NRA plausibly alleged that respondent violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress gun-promotion advocacy. Pp. 8–20. (a) At the heart of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause is the recognition that viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society. When government officials are “engaging in their own expressive conduct,” though, “the Free Speech Clause has no application.” Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460, 467. “When a government entity embarks on a course of action, it necessarily takes a particular viewpoint and rejects others,” and thus does not need to “maintain viewpoint-neutrality when its officers and employees speak about that venture.” Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. 218, 234. While a government official can share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs in the hopes of persuading others, she may not use the power of her office to punish or suppress disfavored expression.
