Whose Speech Is It Anyway? 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

Quote:

The Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Yet Another Case Pitting Anti-Discrimination Law Against Free Speech In The Context Of A Same-Sex Wedding CADA makes illegal both statements that signal exclusion and actions that refuse, on the basis of sexual orientation and other protected characteristics, “the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.” Prohibiting Smith from publishing the statement of her beliefs and requiring her to create unique, custom websites celebrating same-sex weddings, she contends, would violate her First Amendment guarantees of free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. Consequently, Smith sought a declaratory judgment to prevent Colorado from enforcing the law against her prospective wedding-site expansion. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the state, and a divided three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The majority recognized that Smith’s “creation of wedding websites is pure speech” that triggers strict scrutiny, the most difficult form of judicial review for the government to meet and thus the most likely to strike down a law as unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the ruling adopted a novel theory: CADA ensures equal access not to custom-made websites in general but specifically to Smith’s custom websites. In effect, the appellate court treated artistic works as entirely nonfungible and artists as monopolists, giving Colorado the green light to compel Smith’s expression. Chief Judge Tymkovich dissented, characterizing the majority’s holding as “staggering” in its breadth, potentially forcing all artists “to promote messages approved by the government in the name of ‘ensuring access to the commercial marketplace.’”

I haven't seen a ruling on this case, but the NFT part really attracted
my attention.

Personally, I think they'll cut this baby in half. And send it back down
to the lower court for a rethink.

Smith can publish her beliefs but she cannot bar others from publishing theirs.
Or, smith cannot publish her beliefs but state cannot force her to make web
sites for clients.

Anyway, has anyone seen anything recently on this case?

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/wt8QF05