Talk:Compelled speech

What is Compelled Speech?

"Compelled speech is a transmission of expression required by law."

This article suffers because it doesn't define compelled speech adequately or correctly. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson stated in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) that, "if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, religion or other matters of opinion." (Ironically the article cites this case but it doesn't look like the original author of the article bothered to read the case.) What defines compelled speech, therefore, is government coercion of the individual in matters of opinion. I would submit that with the exception of the first and last bullet points under "Examples of compelled speech supported by law," these aren't examples of compelled speech (they look more like equal-protection clause cases). For example, filing a tax return is not coercion in matters of opinion, such as politics or religion; rather, a tax return is a required disclosure of fact. Tpkatsa (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Tbe elephant in the room here is that you're applying a US definition to an article that has already been flagged as having Worldview problems.Newzild (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that "Mandatory fees on agricultural products to support advertising" is not compelled speech; the speech in question was held by the United States Supreme Court to be government speech (Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, 2005), therefore there was no infringement of first amendment rights. Not sure why that is listed as an example of "compelled speech under the law." Tpkatsa (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

I just added a Globalize template. It's possible that this concept only exists in U.S. law, in which case it doesn't need to be globalized, but instead the lede should be written to reflect that. (But it probably is not only a U.S. concept. I know a Canadian who mentions it, although they seem to be ignorant of Canadian law anyway, so who knows?)

—Toby Bartels (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

So, for a concept to exist in a particular country, a citizen of said country need only "mention it"? I'm unsure what this means and how it is relevant to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1B0:AE90:BD0C:65F6:8452:E2C7 (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If after that mention it was then discussed in Parliament and multiple articles were written on the topic as in case with Canadian case, then yes, it's notable. If just some rando mentioned it and nothing happened, no, but that clearly wasn't the case. FreedomGonzo (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this is a concept that means something different in the US. In the legal frameworks I am more familiar with outside the USA the only two examples that are applicable are "Requiring public employees to sign a loyalty oath" and "Compelled self-incrimination by an individual". The reason is as follows - all the other examples involve either being compelled to give money, or some sort of speech by a corporate entity. The legal frameworks I am familiar with don't include money as a type of speech, and don't protect the free speech of corporations. To globalise this article all you would have to do is delete all of the US-local examples and replace them with the obvious: Forcing people to confess to a crime or publicly state specific views, usually political, using torture, threats or other forms of coercion.

I am not even sure this is really a globalization issue. Even in the US forcing people to say something with physical coercion must be the most obvious example of compelled speech? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:5CD3:EA00:49AE:BB2A:D552:D100 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Abortion

Requiring doctors to read certain statements or present images or information to women wanting abortions is an example of compelled speech, yes? --BDD (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Rhadow (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Rhadow, what is your legal source for your statement? If what the doctor is reading is a statement of fact, I am not sure that requiring him to do so would be compelled speech (see above); rather, it would covered under required disclosure statutes. Tpkatsa (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

One of the examples in the USA section of the article relates to this - Christian pregnancy advice organisations being forced to stick abortion posters on their walls. Newzild (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Loyalty oaths in the U.S.

I have boldly removed the following line, pending a better reference.

Requiring public employees to sign a loyalty oath - Levering Act and the California Constitution

While it is possible that loyalty oaths are a federally legal form of compelled speech in the U.S., the references given do not establish this. The Supreme Court declining to hear a case is not the same thing as saying something is definitely legal. And, the example given is in California, the one state where a loyalty oath has been found unconstitutional, meaning it is illegal in that state.

To make this claim, I believe that an example of a federal court saying that loyalty oaths are legal should be provided. Otherwise, it is at most a contentious example, and should not be listed.

Preferably, it should also have a proper reference, and not merely a link to other Wikipedia pages. A valid, reputable secondary source saying that loyalty oaths are legal in the US is better than what is arguably original research.

— trlkly 10:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Better source needed for "legal experts challenged ..."

The reference in the claim

 Legal experts challenged Peterson's interpretation, saying that the bill would not criminalize using non-preferred pronouns.

itself refers to another website to substantiate its paragraph the above citation is taken from. Therein, the passage relevant to the claim seems to be the section titled "Analyzing Peterson’s claims". However, only one such legal expert (I just assume she is, have not checked) is referred to: Brenda Cossman. The same website backs up their citations and her claims by referring to an interview conducted with that expert and to [1].

Am I missing something in these citations? If not, I would propose to either find better citations, or reduce the plural "Legal experts" to "A legal expert". --217.251.37.155 (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

In particular, the website linked to last states

Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”.

which does not support the claim at all. --217.251.37.155 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

References

I don't think we can assume that the link in the Vox article constitutes the entirety of the author's evidence for making the claim about legal experts. We are reliant on claims made by reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Analyzing whether a source itself had sufficient evidence for each claim it makes would lead us into the realm of original research.

Regardless, I have added two additional sources that support the statement.--Trystan (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Is Vox.com really considered a reliable source for such a general claim?

Thank you for finding additional sources! Nevertheless, the statement "the bill [does] not criminalize using non-preferred pronouns" being one of opinion as long as there are no court rulings, I would still suggest to explicitely name those experts according to Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV: Brenda Cossman and Kyle Kirkup. --217.251.37.137 (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Per WP:YESPOV, we should indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. We should attribute the view that the bill did not criminalize pronoun use as the sources do, to legal experts generally. This issue isn't one of "biased opinion" of the sort discussed in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but a question of expert opinion about the nature of Canadian law. We need to avoid creating WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Vox has been found to be generally reliable at WP:RSN.--Trystan (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I should add: my preference would actually to be to remove the entire paragraph. In an article providing a global, high-level overview of compelled speech law in different countries, I think it is preferable to limit each country's discussion to the actual law in place, and avoid speculation (expert or otherwise) about what that law might be.--Trystan (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

While due to their respective specialization I do believe that it is a matter of Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV instead of WP:YESPOV, I agree that the matter of whether this paragraph is to be included in the article is a political one - I cannot say what Wikipedia's guidelines for these kinds of interpretations are. The point about law is that "actual" versus "perceived" is a line that is tilted only by courts or overwhelming opinion of experts on the subject. Neither of the three people in question is an expert on that kind of law, nor has it been tested in court. Nevertheless, the suspicion of the legislation producing compelled speech has been put forward and has not factually nor authoritatively been refuted. I'd vote to see the dispute at least mentioned as long as it has not legally been resolved yet. --217.251.41.250 (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Artur Pawlowski sentencing, compelled speech in Canada

Could somebody add to the Canada section the recent ruling of a canadian judge in regards to canadian pastor Artur Pawlowski? The ruling included compelled speech, forcing the pastor to say out loud a paragraph of opinion written by the judge whenever the pastor expresses his views on the orders of the Alberta Health Services in a public forum. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:857D:6697:B740:4025 (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I figured I'd go ahead doing this since there hasn't been a response for a couple of days. If anyone could improve on it, that would be appreciated. 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:45B:605E:1966:AFCF (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)