https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-speech/when-the-government-can-make-businesses-talk-idUSKBN17Q262 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-speech/when-the-

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-speech/when-the-government-can-make-businesses-talk-idUSKBN17Q262 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-speech/when-the-gover... says: > On Friday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals joined a slowly emerging consensus among the federal circuits, holding that governments have the right to mandate corporate speech “if the information in the disclosure is reasonably related to a substantial governmental interest and is purely factual.” The latter requirement does not seem to be held in the case of compelling rsync to post an updated warrant canary claiming not to have received a warrant if they have. Furthermore, in the case of cancer warnings, the actual law is phrased as: > No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual so, it's not so much compelled speech "out of the blue", rather it's a requirement of doing business. There are other ways the business can comply with the law, such as not including the chemical in the product. In the case of warrant canaries, I'd be surprised if there's a similar law requiring them to be posted to do business.