I have found that the course of the discussion has kinda followed the same "logic" as the decision - they reached the result they wanted, without any of the messy intermediate steps like adherence to law, logic, construction or precedent.
There are some fundamental principles at play here: The First Amendment provides, in pertinent part: "
Congress shall make
no law ...
abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
The constriction is upon Congress (which the Supreme Court has appropriately interpreted as "the government"). This has been extended to the States through the 14th Amendment ("No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States").
The prohibition is on
abridging "the freedom of speech" (or of the press), which again, the Supreme Court has interpreted as "expression" in virtually any form.
"
The press" is a separate consideration, because "its role in
disseminating news and information, is entitled to deference that others are not entitled to".
And then there is "
peaceable assembly", which the Supreme Court has expanded to include "
freedom of association" (“It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech.”
NAACP v. Alabama (1958)). Who one associates with is, itself, expression.
All of these are at play here. The State statute seeks to dictate
what speech is allowed regardless of whether the
disseminator wished to
associate itself with
that speech.
The first hurdle the court completely ignores is that
the First Amendment only applies to state actors. So its pronouncements about it are complete nonsense. Next, it ignores the role of the medium as "disseminating information" - in the form of opinions - by the
private actors posting on the forums. Third, it completely ignores the quality of
association involved. In Congress it is not uncommon for a Representative to state, "I associate myself with those remarks". Similarly, here, the law is seeking to
force association with remarks despite disagreement. Conceptually, the whole thing is a bloody mess.
(I know I did.)
I would guess you could have one heck of a good time chatting up a bunch of Christian Nationalists
