Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 
393 U. S. 503, 505–506 (1969); see also, e.g., Miami Herald 
Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 256 (1974); Wooley 
v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 714 (1977); National Institute of 
Family  and  Life  Advocates  v.  Becerra,  585  U. S.  ___,  ___ 
(2018) (NIFLA) (slip op., at 8).  Nor does it matter whether 
the government seeks to compel a person to speak its mes-
sage when he would prefer to remain silent or to force an 
individual to include other ideas with his own speech that 
he  would  prefer  not  to  include.  See  Hurley,  515  U. S.,  at 
568–570, 576; see also Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & 
Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U. S. 47, 63–64 (2006) (FAIR)
(discussing cases).  All that offends the First Amendment 
just the same. 

III 
Applying these principles to this case, we align ourselves
with much of the Tenth Circuit’s analysis.  The Tenth Cir-
cuit held that the wedding websites Ms. Smith seeks to cre-
ate qualify as “pure speech” under this Court’s precedents. 
6 F. 4th, at 1176.  We agree.  It is a conclusion that flows 
directly  from  the  parties’  stipulations.  They  have  stipu-
lated that Ms. Smith’s websites promise to contain “images, 
words,  symbols,  and  other  modes  of  expression.”    App.  to 
Pet. for Cert. 181a.  They have stipulated that every website
will  be  her  “original,  customized”  creation.  Id.,  at  181a– 
182a.  And they have stipulated that Ms. Smith will create 
these  websites  to  communicate  ideas—namely,  to  “cele-
brate  and  promote  the  couple’s  wedding  and  unique  love 
story”  and  to  “celebrat[e]  and  promot[e]”  what  Ms.  Smith 
understands to be a true marriage.  Id., at 186a–187a. 

A  hundred  years  ago,  Ms.  Smith  might  have  furnished 
her services using pen and paper.  Those services are no less 
protected  speech  today  because  they  are  conveyed  with  a 
“voice that resonates farther than it could from any soap-
box.”  Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,