The right to free speech includes the right to not be compelled to speak.
That includes not being required to pay dues to a union whose political views might be different from yours, not being required to advertise abortion availability at your faith-based pregnancy counseling service, not being required to use your cake baking talent to create a special cake or your flower arranging expertise for a gay wedding.
All of these have come down from a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court in the closing days of this year?s court calendar.
This past week, the court ruled that public employees could not to be forced to pay dues to unions with which they might not agree.
?The First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids abridgment of the freedom of speech,? wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the 5-4 opinion. ?We have held time and again that freedom of speech ?includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.??
Public employee unions that advocate higher wages that require higher taxes are intrinsically political.
Just the day before the court ruled, again 5-4, that a California law that required pro-life, religious-oriented unlicensed pregnancy centers to place extensive disclaimers in their ads and on billboards telling people about abortion services was an unconstitutional impingement on free speech.
?Here, for example, licensed clinics must provide a government-drafted script about the availability of state-sponsored services, as well as contact information for how to obtain them? wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in the majority opinion. ?One of those services is abortion ? the very practice that petitioners are devoted to opposing. By requiring petitioners to inform women how they can obtain state-subsidized abortions ? at the same time petitioners try to dissuade women from choosing that option ? the licensed notice plainly ?alters the content? of petitioners? speech.?
A little more than a week earlier in a 7-2 ruling the court held Colorado could not force cake shop owner to make a special cake for a gay wedding.
Shortly thereafter. the court remanded a Washington case involving a florist who declined to arrange flowers for a gay wedding, citing the Colorado ruling.
The state of Nevada, under the direction of Attorney General Adam Laxalt, had joined in both the public employee union case and the California abortion law case on the winning side.
Laxalt?s office put out a press release about the California law ruling stating: ?The ruling, which rests exclusively on free speech grounds, does not affect abortion providers; it neither requires them to change their practices nor infringes on their ability to provide abortions. The Supreme Court correctly held that compelling private organizations to promote the government?s preferred message under those circumstances is inconsistent with the First Amendment. This is an important holding ensuring that the government cannot simply force private speakers with whom it disagrees to also promote the government?s preferred message, especially when there are other ways for the government to promote its own message without interfering with private speech.?
Republican Laxalt?s Democratic opponent for governor in November, Steve Sisolak, put out a statement reported by The Nevada Independent saying, ?I believe that women deserve access to all of their options when it comes to their reproductive health care. I still have concerns over the lack of information given by these crisis pregnancy centers and the harm it can cause.?
Sisolak continued, ?As governor, I will fight to protect a woman?s constitutional reproductive rights and her consistent access to comprehensive care. Adam Laxalt has shown repeatedly that he will pursue an anti-choice agenda that will roll back the clock on women?s rights and bring Nevada down a dangerous path.?
This has nothing to do with abortion rights and only to do with speech rights.
This point was lost on Democratic Rep. Jacky Rosen who is running for Republican Dean Heller?s Senate seat. She sent out an email saying, ?Deceiving women about their health care options is an attack on women?s fundamental reproductive freedom, and I will continue to stand against this Administration?s attacks on women?s rights and access to health care. Nevadans support a woman?s right to make these personal decisions.?
Thomas Mitchell is a longtime Nevada newspaper columnist. You may email him at firstname.lastname@example.org. He also blogs at http://4thst8.wordpress.com/.