Hat tip: Michelle Malkin.

The decision was unanimous. I found most interesting what the Court, in the opinion authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, had to say about the issue of compelled speech:

We have also in a number of instances limited the government’s ability to force one speaker to host or accommodate another speaker’s message. … The compelled-speech violation in each of our prior cases, however, resulted from the fact that the complaining speaker’s own message was forced to accommodate. … In this case, accommodating the military’s message does not affect the law schools’ speech, because the schools are not speaking when they host interviews and recruiting receptions.

I also appreciate the Court’s making this distinction, which I think is worth remembering:

[T]he First Amendment’s protection extends beyond the right to speak. We have recognized a First Amendment right to associate for the purpose of speaking, which we have termed a “right of expressive association.” … The reason we have extended First Amendment protection in this way is clear: The right to speak is often exercised most effectively by combining one’s voice with the voices of others. … If the government were free to restrict individuals’ ability to join together and speak, it could essentially silence views that the First Amendment is intended to protect.

Here’s hoping those in leadership at UNC are paying attention.


Return to the Locker Room.