Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

25 

Opinion of the Court 

which this Nation stands.  See Skokie, 432 U. S., at 43–44; 
supra,  at  17–18.    Five  years  ago,  in  a  case  the  dissenters
highlight at the outset of their opinion, the Court stressed
that “it is not . . . the role of the State or its officials to pre-
scribe what shall be offensive.”  Masterpiece Cakeshop, 584 
U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 16).  And just days ago, Members 
of today’s dissent joined in holding that the First Amend-
ment  restricts  how  States  may  prosecute  stalkers  despite 
the “harm[ful],” “low-value,” and “upsetting” nature of their
speech.  Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U. S. ___, ___ (2023) 
(slip op., at 6); id., at ___ (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part 
and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 5).

Today, however, the dissent abandons what this Court’s
cases have recognized time and time again:  A commitment 
to  speech  for  only  some  messages  and  some  persons  is  no 
commitment at all.  By approving a government’s effort to
“[e]liminat[e]” disfavored “ideas,” 6 F. 4th, at 1178, today’s 
dissent is emblematic of an unfortunate tendency by some
to defend First Amendment values only when they find the
speaker’s message sympathetic.  But “[i]f liberty means an-
ything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do
not want to hear.”  6 F. 4th, at 1190 (Tymkovich, C. J., dis-
senting) (quoting G. Orwell). 

* 
In  this  case,  Colorado  seeks  to  force  an  individual  to 
speak  in  ways  that  align  with  its  views  but  defy  her  con-
science about a matter of major significance.  In the past,
other  States  in  Barnette,  Hurley,  and  Dale  have  similarly 
tested  the  First  Amendment’s  boundaries  by  seeking  to
compel speech they thought vital at the time.  But, as this 
Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves 
and  to  express  those  thoughts  freely  is  among  our  most
cherished  liberties  and  part  of  what  keeps  our  Republic 
strong.  Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment
to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas