TY - JOUR
AU - Gaylord, Scott W.
AB - he First Amendment states that “Congress A Matter shall make no law…abridging the freedom of T speech.” Given the myriad ways in which free- dom of speech can be implicated, the United States of Context: Supreme Court has not adopted a single standard for reviewing First Amendment speech claims. With respect to compelled speech, the Court has instructed Casey and the that “context” is dispositive. When the government attempts to “prescribe what shall be orthodox in poli- Constitutionality tics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,” the Court applies strict scrutiny. When, how- of Compelled ever, “the State has a significant role to play in regulat - ing” a particular context, government-compelled dis- closures may be subject to a lower standard of review: Physician Speech “When a state regulation implicates First Amendment rights, the court must balance those interests against the State’s legitimate interest in regulating the activity Scott W. Gaylord in question.” Determining which level of scrutiny applies to com- pelled disclosures in a given context, therefore, is criti- cal because the government rarely (if ever) survives strict scrutiny under the Court’s First Amendment speech precedents. 
TI - A Matter of Context: Casey and the Constitutionality of Compelled Physician Speech
JF - The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics
DO - 10.1111/jlme.12194
DA - 2015-04-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/cambridge-university-press/a-matter-of-context-casey-and-the-constitutionality-of-compelled-HC8Nj1U7iq
SP - 35
EP - 50
VL - 43
IS - 1
DP - DeepDyve
ER -