Footnotes (27)



Compelled Speech

Larry Alexander

University of San Diego School of Law

Constitutional Commentary, 2006
San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 07-51

In this essay I take up the question of whether and how we are harmed when government compels us to utter propositions whose truth we reject or which we find offensive for other reasons. I conclude that none of the various explanations offered - that we suffer harm to our autonomy, to our epistemic capacity, to our integrity, to our control over self-presentation, to our compliance with social norms or performative norms, or to our preference not to deceive others - is ultimately satisfactory. Along the way I offer a taxonomy of the Supreme Court's "compelled speech" cases, arguing that only West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and Wooley v. Maynard actually raise the issue of compelled speech. I also introspect about the phenomenology of uttering propositions we do not believe, and how that compares to singing such propositions in hymns, or reciting them in plays.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 21

Keywords: compelled speech, freedom of belief, autonomy

JEL Classification: K1, K10

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: August 1, 2006  

Suggested Citation

Alexander, Larry, Compelled Speech. Constitutional Commentary, 2006; San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 07-51. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=921414

Contact Information

Lawrence Alexander (Contact Author)
University of San Diego School of Law ( email )
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110-2492
United States
619-260-2317 (Phone)
619-260-4728 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,717
Downloads: 289
Download Rank: 81,972
Footnotes:  27