It’s possible, but I don’t think we’re fully agreeing. To me, a government being able to compel silence from / prohibit disclosure by a private company or pers

It’s possible, but I don’t think we’re fully agreeing. To me, a government being able to compel silence from / prohibit disclosure by a private company or person feels much less awful than a government being able to force them to say something false. Those are not even in the same category of acceptability for me. The second one is pretty much never acceptable; the first one sometimes is, though of course not always. I think the other commenter was saying that US law allows the government to oblige Apple in the second way, in other words to affirmatively make false statements. I was saying it does not and probably constitutionally cannot. That seems like a clear disagreement to me. They and I are, however, agreeing that US law allows the government to compel Apple to keep silent about certain things. This includes not disclosing that certain prior statements which may have been true at the time have subsequently become false.