•  
  •  
 

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

Abstract

The article examines the constitutional implications of government actions that compel ideological conformity, particularly focusing on the First Amendment's prohibition against coerced ideological speech. It argues that while the Supreme Court has established that the government cannot force citizens to adopt specific ideological beliefs, the legal framework remains unclear and inconsistent. The analysis emphasizes the need for a structured approach to determine when such coercion crosses constitutional boundaries, especially in cases involving captive audiences and government speech. The author proposes that the prohibition on prescribing orthodoxy should explicitly ban the use of nonrational methods to influence citizens' beliefs, ensuring a clearer distinction between legitimate government actions and unconstitutional coercion.

Disciplines

First Amendment | Jurisprudence | Law

Download

Share

COinS