Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 17

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

U. S. 460, 467 (2009); see Johanns v. Livestock Marketing 
Assn., 544 U. S. 550, 553 (2005) (“[T]he Government’s own
speech  . . .  is  exempt  from  First  Amendment  scrutiny”); 
Board  of  Regents  of  Univ.  of  Wis.  System  v.  Southworth, 
529 U. S. 217, 235 (2000). 

As we have said, “it is not easy to imagine how govern-
ment  could  function”  if  it  were  subject  to  the  restrictions 
that  the  First  Amendment  imposes  on  private  speech. 
Summum, supra, at 468; see Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of 
Confederate  Veterans,  Inc.,  576  U. S.  ___,  ___–___  (2015) 
(slip  op.,  at  5–7).    “ ‘[T]he  First  Amendment  forbids  the
government  to  regulate  speech  in  ways  that  favor  some
viewpoints  or  ideas  at  the  expense  of  others,’ ”  Lamb’s 
Chapel  v.  Center  Moriches  Union  Free  School  Dist.,  508 
U. S.  384,  394  (1993),  but  imposing  a  requirement  of 
viewpoint-neutrality on government speech would be para- 
lyzing.  When  a  government  entity  embarks  on  a  course 
of  action,  it  necessarily  takes  a  particular  viewpoint
and  rejects  others.  The  Free  Speech  Clause  does  not  re- 
quire  government  to  maintain  viewpoint  neutrality  when 
its officers and employees speak about that venture. 

Here  is  a  simple  example.   During  the  Second  World
War,  the  Federal  Government  produced  and  distributed
millions of posters to promote the war effort.7  There were 
posters urging enlistment, the purchase of war bonds, and 
the  conservation  of  scarce  resources.8   These  posters  ex-
pressed  a  viewpoint,  but  the  First  Amendment  did  not 
demand  that  the  Government  balance  the  message  of 
these  posters  by  producing  and  distributing  posters  en-
couraging  Americans  to  refrain  from  engaging  in  these 
activities. 

But  while  the  government-speech  doctrine 

im-
portant—indeed, essential—it is a doctrine that is suscep-

is 

—————— 

7 See, e.g., D. Nelson, The Posters That Won the War (1991). 
8 Ibid.