Legally compelled speech is when the government forces someone to say something they do not want to say. A classic example is Minersville School District v. Gobitis, wherein the Supreme Court affirmed the notion of compelled speech, though it was later overturned. Such obligated expression violates the freedom of speech.

In the United States, several cases have involved legally compelled speech. Some of the most famous cases include:

• West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943): The Supreme Court ruled that the government could not compel students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance if they objected to doing so on religious or philosophical grounds.
• Wooley v. Maynard (1977): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not compel motorists to display the motto “Live Free or Die” on their license plates if they objected.
• Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not compel professors at public universities to sign a statement supporting military recruitment on campus.

These cases establish that the government cannot compel speech in most cases. However, there are a few exceptions to this rule. The government can compel speech in cases where it is necessary to protect national security or public safety or where it is essential to ensure the fairness of a legal proceeding.

In God We Trust

The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This means the government cannot establish a state religion or favor one religion over another.

The phrase “In God we trust” has been on American currency since 1956. However, there is no consensus on whether it violates the First Amendment, specifically the separation of church and state.

Some argue that “In God we trust” violates the First Amendment because it establishes a state religion. They say that the phrase implies that the United States is a Christian nation and that this gives preferential treatment to Christians over people of other faiths.

Others argue that the phrase “In God we trust” is not a violation of the First Amendment because it is not an establishment of religion. They say the phrase is a general expression of faith and does not favor any specific religion.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether the phrase “In God we trust” violates the First Amendment. However, the Court has ruled on other cases involving the separation of church and state. In these cases, the Court has held that the government cannot endorse or promote religion.

The issue of whether the phrase “In God we trust” is a violation of the First Amendment is a complex one. Strong arguments are on both sides of the issue. Ultimately, it is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the phrase violates the First Amendment, and despite the controversy, the phrase “In God we trust” remains on American currency.

Personal pronouns

One new wrinkle in the legally compelled speech issue has been the advocacy for the use of personal pronouns. While there isn’t a defined legal foundation/history in the US for doing so, the concept that the use of personal pronouns can become such an issue is not unheard of. Consider, for example, the Canadian bill C-16, which seeks to add the failure to use preferred pronouns as “discrimination” which might (at some point) lead to jail time. Therefore, the use of personal pronouns could become legally required.