Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 646

524US2

Unit: $U95

[09-06-00 18:40:44] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 569 (1998)

601

Souter, J., dissenting

mental rule of the First Amendment that viewpoint discrimi-
nation in the exercise of public authority over expressive ac-
tivity is unconstitutional. The Court’s conclusions that the
proviso is not viewpoint based, that it is not a regulation, and
that the NEA may permissibly engage in viewpoint-based
discrimination, are all patently mistaken. Nor may the
question raised be answered in the Government’s favor on
the assumption that some constitutional applications of the
statute are enough to satisfy the demand of facial constitu-
tionality, leaving claims of the proviso’s obvious invalidity
to be dealt with later in response to challenges of speciﬁc
applications of the discriminatory standards. This assump-
tion is irreconcilable with our longstanding and sensible
doctrine of facial overbreadth, applicable to claims brought
under the First Amendment’s speech clause.
I respectfully
dissent.

I

“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First
Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the
expression of an idea simply because society ﬁnds the idea
itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S.
397, 414 (1989).
“[A]bove all else, the First Amendment
means that government has no power to restrict expression
because of its message [or] its ideas,” Police Dept. of Chicago
v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 95 (1972), which is to say that “[t]he
principle of viewpoint neutrality .
. underlies the First
Amendment,” Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United
States, Inc., 466 U. S. 485, 505 (1984). Because this principle
applies not only to afﬁrmative suppression of speech, but also
to disqualiﬁcation for government favors, Congress is gener-
ally not permitted to pivot discrimination against otherwise
protected speech on the offensiveness or unacceptability of
the views it expresses. See, e. g., Rosenberger v. Rector and
Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819 (1995) (public univer-
sity’s student activities funds may not be disbursed on
viewpoint-based terms); Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches

.