Abstract
I. Introduction
II. The No-Compelled-Speech Doctrine: A Summary of the Supreme Court’s Jurisprudence ... A. Justice Jackson’s Iconic Opinion in Barnette ... B. Wooley and Libertarian Authoritarianism ... C. When Government Treats Speech as a Public Accommodation: Hurley’s Unanimous Decision ... D. Justice Kennedy Reaches Across Time to Unite with Justice Jackson
III. A Careful Reading of Telescope Media ... A. Stras Versus Kelly: Regulation of Speech or Conduct? ... B. Stras Versus Kelly: Content-Neutral or Content-Based Law? ... C. Stras Versus Kelly: Strict Scrutiny/Compelling Interest Test
IV. Defending the Reasoning of Telescope Media’s Compelled Speech Decision ... A. The No-Compelled-Speech Doctrine Applies When “A” Is Compelled to Speak, Create, or Help Disseminate the Message of “B” ... B. Compelled Speech Under Public Accommodation Laws Is Usually Viewpoint-Based, and Certainly Not Content-Neutral … C. Herein of Compelling Interests and Relative Harms ... D. The Race Analogy Does Not Apply to Wedding Vendors and Compelled Speech Cases
V. Conclusion
Recommended Citation
Richard F. Duncan,
Seeing the No-Compelled-Speech Doctrine Clearly through the Lens of Telescope Media,
99 Neb. L. Rev. 58
(2020)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol99/iss1/4
