Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf
Page Number: 26

2 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND 
LIFE ADVOCATES v. BECERRA
 
KENNEDY, J., concurring
 

And the history of the Act’s passage and its underinclusive
application  suggest  a  real  possibility  that  these  individu-
als were targeted because of their beliefs.

The California Legislature included in its official history
the  congratulatory  statement  that  the  Act  was  part  of
California’s legacy of “forward thinking.”  App. 38–39.  But 
it  is  not  forward  thinking  to  force  individuals  to  “be  an
instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological 
point  of  view  [they]  fin[d]  unacceptable.”    Wooley  v. 
Maynard,  430  U. S.  705,  715  (1977).    It  is  forward  think-
ing to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 
1791;  to  understand  the  history  of  authoritarian  govern-
ment as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history
since  then  shows  how  relentless  authoritarian  regimes
are  in  their  attempts  to  stifle  free  speech;  and  to  carry
those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the
necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come. 
Governments  must  not  be  allowed  to  force  persons  to
express  a  message  contrary  to  their  deepest  convictions. 
Freedom  of  speech  secures  freedom  of  thought  and  belief. 
This law imperils those liberties.