3 ms·

> Forced speech, such as labeling, is an infringement on free speech (ie. the right to be silent). We already have plenty of restrictions on speech (the most

> Forced speech, such as labeling, is an infringement on free speech (ie. the right to be silent). We already have plenty of restrictions on speech (the most well-known ones being slander and libel, but also plenty of regulations around speech that comes in the form of advertising specifically). In this case, you still have two options: a) make the post, but also reveal that it was paid for, or b) don't make the post It's not really forced speech when you still have two options, and one of them includes 'not saying anything'. It's also a pretty reasonable argument to make that making the paid post but not disclosing it is misleading, and there are already all sorts of laws restricting misleading speech in advertising. Also, this only kicks in if the post is commercial - ie, if money changes hands. To give a "bright line" counterexample, it doesn't restrict celebrities from making posts about their favorite products if they have had no communication with the company at all.

cmdrfred 10y ago
You forget option c. c) Don't get paid for the post and simply support the product because you believe in it.
rayiner 10y ago
The Government: you have two options, you can say "Hilary is great!" or you can say nothing. It's not compelled speech because you have two options. Luckily, the courts do not construe the 1st amendment so narrowly.
- reitzensteinm 10y ago
  Do you see any distinction between mandatory disclosure of compensation for endorsements, and mandatory disclosure of interest when recommending a stock?
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Yes, because the latter has a direct nexus with a commercial transaction.
- notahacker 10y ago
  I was under the impression that, if paid for, political speech (which is the type of speech the First Amendment was intended to protect) already came with disclosure requirements that had been contested and ruled constitutional. The appropriate analogy isn't a choice between being able to say "Hillary Is Great" or nothing at all, it's a choice between having to say "paid for by Super PAC for Issue" if accepting their cash to broadcast their view on Hillary, or not accepting the cash and saying whatever you like about Hillary.

cmdrfred 10y ago

You forget option c. c) Don't get paid for the post and simply support the product because you believe in it.

rayiner 10y ago

The Government: you have two options, you can say "Hilary is great!" or you can say nothing. It's not compelled speech because you have two options. Luckily, the courts do not construe the 1st amendment so narrowly.

reitzensteinm 10y ago
Do you see any distinction between mandatory disclosure of compensation for endorsements, and mandatory disclosure of interest when recommending a stock?
- rayiner 10y ago
  Yes, because the latter has a direct nexus with a commercial transaction.
notahacker 10y ago
I was under the impression that, if paid for, political speech (which is the type of speech the First Amendment was intended to protect) already came with disclosure requirements that had been contested and ruled constitutional. The appropriate analogy isn't a choice between being able to say "Hillary Is Great" or nothing at all, it's a choice between having to say "paid for by Super PAC for Issue" if accepting their cash to broadcast their view on Hillary, or not accepting the cash and saying whatever you like about Hillary.