Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

Free  speech  serves  many  ends.  It  is  essential  to  our 
democratic  form  of  government,  see,  e.g.,  Garrison  v. 
Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 74–75 (1964), and it furthers the 
search for truth, see, e.g., Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 
88,  95  (1940).    Whenever  the  Federal  Government  or  a 
State prevents individuals from saying what they think on 
important  matters  or  compels  them  to  voice  ideas  with
which they disagree, it undermines these ends.

When  speech  is  compelled,  however,  additional  damage
is  done.  In  that  situation,  individuals  are  coerced  into 
betraying their convictions.  Forcing free and independent 
individuals  to  endorse  ideas  they  find  objectionable  is 
always  demeaning,  and  for  this  reason,  one  of  our  land­
mark  free  speech  cases  said  that  a  law  commanding  “in­
voluntary affirmation” of objected-to beliefs would require 
“even  more  immediate  and  urgent  grounds”  than  a  law 
demanding silence.  Barnette, supra, at 633; see also Riley, 
supra,  at  796–797  (rejecting  “deferential  test”  for  com­
pelled speech claims). 

Compelling  a  person  to  subsidize  the  speech  of  other 

private  speakers  raises  similar  First  Amendment  con­
cerns.  Knox, supra, at 309; United States v. United Foods, 
Inc., 533 U. S. 405, 410 (2001); Abood, supra, at 222, 234– 
235.  As  Jefferson  famously  put  it,  “to  compel  a  man  to
furnish  contributions  of  money  for  the  propagation  of 
opinions  which  he  disbelieves  and  abhor[s]  is  sinful  and 
tyrannical.”  A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, in
2 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 545 (J. Boyd ed. 1950) (em­
phasis deleted and footnote omitted); see also Hudson, 475 
U. S.,  at  305,  n. 15.    We  have  therefore  recognized  that  a 
“ ‘significant  impingement  on  First  Amendment  rights’ ” 
occurs  when  public  employees  are  required  to  provide 
financial  support  for  a  union  that  “takes  many  positions 
during  collective  bargaining  that  have  powerful  political
and civic consequences.”  Knox, supra, at 310–311 (quoting 
Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 466 U. S. 435, 455 (1984)).