Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

10 

303 CREATIVE LLC v. ELENIS 

Opinion of the Court 

870  (1997).    All  manner  of  speech—from  “pictures,  films, 
paintings,  drawings,  and  engravings,”  to  “oral  utterance 
and the printed word”—qualify for the First Amendment’s
protections; no less can hold true when it comes to speech
like Ms. Smith’s conveyed over the Internet.  Kaplan v. Cal-
ifornia, 413 U. S. 115, 119–120 (1973); see also Shurtleff v. 
Boston,  596  U. S.  ___,  ___–___  (2022)  (slip  op.,  at  7–8) 
(flags); Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U. S. 
786,  790  (2011)  (video  games);  Hurley,  515  U. S.,  at  568– 
570 (parades); Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 
790 (1989) (music); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 
495, 501–502 (1952) (movies).

We further agree with the Tenth Circuit that the wedding
websites Ms. Smith seeks to create involve her speech.  6 
F. 4th,  at  1181,  and  n. 5.    Again,  the  parties’  stipulations
lead the way to that conclusion.  See App. to Pet. for Cert.
181a, 187a.  As the parties have described it, Ms. Smith in-
tends  to  “ve[t]”  each  prospective  project  to  determine 
whether it is one she is willing to endorse.  Id., at 185a.  She 
will consult with clients to discuss “their unique stories as
source material.”  Id., at 186a.  And she will produce a final
story  for  each  couple  using  her  own  words  and  her  own 
“original  artwork.”    Id.,  at  182a–183a.    Of  course,  Ms. 
Smith’s speech may combine with the couple’s in the final 
product.    But  for  purposes  of  the  First  Amendment  that
changes nothing.  An individual “does not forfeit constitu-
tional protection simply by combining multifarious voices” 
in a single communication.  Hurley, 515 U. S., at 569. 

As surely as Ms. Smith seeks to engage in protected First
Amendment  speech,  Colorado  seeks  to  compel  speech Ms. 
Smith does not wish to provide.  As the Tenth Circuit ob-
served,  if  Ms.  Smith  offers  wedding  websites  celebrating 
marriages she endorses, the State intends to “forc[e her] to
create  custom  websites”  celebrating  other  marriages  she 
does not.  6 F. 4th, at 1178.  Colorado seeks to compel this 
speech in order to “excis[e] certain ideas or viewpoints from