Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-631_2d93.pdf
Page Number: 33

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

3 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

The  problem  with  that  approach,  which  reflexively  ap-
plies strict scrutiny to all content-based speech distinctions,
is that it is divorced from First Amendment values.  This 
case  primarily  involves  commercial  regulation—namely,
debt collection.  And, in my view, there is no basis here to 
apply “strict scrutiny” based on “content-discrimination.” 

To appreciate why, it is important to understand at least 
one  set  of  values  that  underlie  the  First  Amendment  and 
the related reasons why courts scrutinize some speech re-
strictions strictly.  The concept is abstract but simple: “We 
the People of the United States” have created a government 
of laws enacted by elected representatives.  For our govern-
ment to remain a democratic republic, the people must be
free to generate, debate, and discuss both general and spe-
cific ideas, hopes, and experiences.  The people must then
be able to transmit their resulting views and conclusions to
their elected representatives,  which they may do directly,
or indirectly through the shaping of public opinion.  The ob-
ject of that transmission is to influence the public policy en-
acted  by  elected  representatives.    As  this  Court  has  ex-
plained,  “[t]he  First  Amendment  was  fashioned  to  assure
unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of po-
litical and social changes desired by the people.”  Meyer v. 
Grant, 486 U. S. 414, 421 (1988) (internal quotation marks
omitted).  See generally R. Post, Democracy, Expertise, and
Academic Freedom: A First Amendment Jurisprudence for 
the Modern State 1–25 (2012).

In other words, the free marketplace of ideas is not simply 
a debating society for expressing thought in a vacuum.  It 
is in significant part an instrument for “bringing about . . . 
political and social chang[e ].”  Meyer, 486 U. S., at 421.  The 
representative  democracy  that  “We  the  People”  have  cre-
ated insists that this be so.  See Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 
564 U. S. 552, 583 (2011) (BREYER, J., dissenting).  See gen-
erally, e.g., B. Neuborne, Madison’s Music: On Reading the
First Amendment (2015).