Reply To: Today they stamped “sex offender” on my driver’s license

#41635
Avatar
TS

From another discussion elsewhere on this OK ID/DL topic for interested parties:

Also key to the whole compelled speech argument is Riley v. Nat’l Fed. of the Blind (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/781/case.html). In that case, SCOTUS said: ***** Moreover, for First Amendment purposes, a distinction cannot be drawn between compelled statements of opinion and, as here, compelled statements of “fact,” since either form of compulsion burdens protected speech. Thus, North Carolina’s content-based regulation is subject to exacting First Amendment scrutiny. ***** This is a bright-line statement, and reiterates strict scrutiny as the standard. It’s obviously important in the ID/DL discussion as the State would certainly argue they’re just giving truthful information, a la ML. However, unlike the data on a ML site, which is a compendium of public records, the marking on a DL/ID is not any form of public record. It is a distinct and separate message actively created by the State, which the citizen is then compelled to speak, despite her/his disagreement with the message–just like in Maynard. WV St. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/624/case.html) could also come into play regarding compelled speech. (It was a actually Freedom of Religion case, but SCOTUS avoided that and ruled on Freedom of Speech…compelled speech.)