Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf
Page Number: 12

8 

KNOX v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

Opinion of the Court 

assessment  will  be  able  to  get  their  money  back.    The 
union is not entitled to dictate unilaterally the manner in
which it advertises the availability of the refund.

For  this  reason,  we  conclude  that  a  live  controversy

remains, and we proceed to the merits. 

III 

A 

Our cases have often noted the close connection between 
our  Nation’s  commitment  to  self-government  and  the
rights protected by the First Amendment.  See, e.g., Brown 
v.  Hartlage,  456  U. S.  45,  52  (1982)  (“At  the  core  of  the
First  Amendment  are  certain  basic  conceptions  about  the 
manner  in  which  political  discussion  in  a  representative
democracy should proceed”); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 
93,  n. 127  (1976)  (per curiam)  (“[T]he  central  purpose  of
the  Speech  and  Press  Clauses  was  to  assure  a  society  in 
which  ‘uninhibited,  robust,  and  wide-open’  public  debate 
concerning matters of public interest would thrive, for only
in  such  a  society  can  a  healthy  representative  democracy
flourish”);  Cox  v.  Louisiana,  379  U. S.  536,  552  (1965) 
(“Maintenance  of  the  opportunity  for  free  political  discus-
sion  is  a  basic  tenet  of  our  constitutional  democracy”); 
Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 375 (1927) (Brandeis, 
J.,  concurring);  Patterson  v.  Colorado  ex rel.  Attorney 
General  of  Colo.,  205  U. S.  454,  465  (1907)  (Harlan,  J., 
dissenting).

The First Amendment creates “an open marketplace” in 
which  differing  ideas  about  political,  economic,  and  social
issues  can  compete  freely  for  public  acceptance  without 
improper government interference.  New York State Bd. of 
Elections  v.  Lopez  Torres,  552  U. S.  196,  208  (2008).    See 
also  Hustler  Magazine,  Inc.  v.  Falwell,  485  U. S.  46,  51 
(1988);  Mills  v.  Alabama,  384  U. S.  214,  218–219  (1966).
The  government  may  not  prohibit  the  dissemination  of 
ideas  that  it  disfavors,  nor  compel  the  endorsement  of