Parties: United States v. United Foods
Date: 2001-06-25
Identifiers:
Opinions:
Segment Sets:
Paragraph: 10 - It imposes no restraint on the freedom of an objecting party to communicate its own message; the program does not compel an objecting party (here a corporate entity) itself to express views it disfavors; and the mandated scheme does not compel the expression of political or ideological views.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: the freedom of an objecting party
Search time: 2017-10-13 13:47:37 Searcher: ars9ef Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 14 - We did say in Glickman that Abood "recognized a First Amendment interest in not being compelled to contribute to an organization whose expressive activities conflict with one's 'freedom of belief.' " 521 U.S., at 471 (quoting Abood, 431 U.S., at 235). We take further instruction, however, from Abood's statement that speech need not be characterized as political before it receives First Amendment protection. Id., at 232.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: s 'freedom of belief
Search time: 2017-10-13 13:47:37 Searcher: ars9ef Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 40 - Money and speech are not identical. Cf. Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 388-389 (2000); id., at 398. Stevens, J., concurring: N111* "Money is property; it is not speech"; id., at 400 (Breyer, J., concurring)
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: Money and speech are not identical
Search time: 2017-11-10 14:59:38 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 27 - N8* "First, the marketing orders impose no restraint on the freedom of any producer to communicate any message to any audience. Second, they do not compel any person to engage in any actual or symbolic speech. Third, they do not compel the producers to endorse or to finance any political or ideological views." Id., at 469-470. This case, although it involves mushrooms rather than fruit, is identical in each of these three critical respects. No one, including the Court, claims otherwise. And I believe these similar characteristics demand a similar conclusion.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: any actual or symbolic speech. Third, they do not compel
Search time: 2018-03-29 13:30:01 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef Segmenter: ars9ef
Paragraph: 40 - First, the program does not significantly interfere with protected speech interests. It does not compel speech itself; it compels the payment of money. Money and speech are not identical. Cf. Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 388-389 (2000); id., at 398 (Stevens, J., concurring) N258* ("Money is property; it is not speech");
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match:
Search time: 2018-04-12 08:37:53 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 42 - N259* ("The First Amendment's concern for commercial speech is based on the informational function of advertising"); First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 783 (1978) N260* ("A commercial advertisement is constitutionally protected not so much because it pertains to the seller's business as because it furthers the societal interest in the N261* 'free flow of commercial information' ")
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match:
Search time: 2018-04-12 08:37:53 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 6 - A quarter of a century ago, the Court held that commercial speech, usually defined as speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction, is protected by the First Amendment. Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 762 (1976). N262* "The commercial marketplace, like other spheres of our social and cultural life, provides a forum where ideas and information flourish."
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match:
Search time: 2018-04-12 08:37:53 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk