tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4659708694983666028.post4408561115369053921..comments2024-03-07T05:32:33.294-05:00Comments on Wait A Second!: Anti-prostitution policy requirement violates the First AmendmentSecond Circuit Civil Rights Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06808477135354174644noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4659708694983666028.post-82121191986488125362011-07-08T10:44:47.363-04:002011-07-08T10:44:47.363-04:00The court's reasoning on compelled speech as a...The court's reasoning on compelled speech as a condition for government funding is a bit unconvincing. The majority concedes that the government can require an affirmative statement on drug use as a condition for funding a drug use prevention program.<br />Then why can't Congress define the government's purpose as funding programs that aim to prevent AIDS by preventing prostitution? If that is the purpose of the government program, then, under the court's logic, the government could require that the program oppose prostitution as a condition for funding.<br />The majority opinion seems to reduce the question of compelled speech to a question of semantics. <br />In a non-public forum context the government could effectively compel recipients of government funds to espouse the government's positions by artful drafting of the purposes of the program.Ronald B. McGuirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09119456395675168439noreply@blogger.com