The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the petitioner, Ms. Smith. In the opinion of the Court, it held that her business and its creations are to be understood as pure speech which is protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. That is to say, her right to decide what she speaks for and is willing to express in her work will prevail over the local Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) due to the latter being in violation of the Constitution and the First Amendment.
In order to gain the protection of the First Amendment, it is crucial that Ms. Smith’s work is demonstrated to qualify as pure speech. The Supreme Court built this qualification on the precedents showing expressive traits that were considered as pure speech, stating that the facts are close to identical to hers. Firstly, in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston the Court held that a parade receives the protection of the First Amendment as free speech. Thus, a public accommodations law could not be applied in order to force the parade to include an LGBTQ-group as it would manipulate the expressive content of the parade. Secondly, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale the Court held the association to be expressive and therefore receive the protection of the First Amendment. Thus, the association could not be compelled to include a membership of a gay person as it would interfere with its beliefs, namely its speech.
The above-mentioned cases bring to light that the First Amendment does indeed protect an individual’s right to speak their mind without the government controlling it. It is somewhat admitted in the opinion of the Court that the speech of a person does not need to be considered sensible but that it is not the government’s job to harness individuals to exhibit their preferred messages as that would be in violation of the Free Speech Clause. Therefore, it is very well possible to exclude unwanted voices in one’s speech or expression despite it appearing occasionally discriminating, such as in Ms. Smith’s case.
To further enhance the sole purpose of excluding voices Ms. Smith does not believe in, she and the State stipulated to some facts. She is willing to work with all people regardless of classifications but will not be compelled to express voices that contradict the biblical truth. Both parties also stipulated to all the provided services being expressive. These are the decisive facts from which it is possible to derive that her work does qualify as pure speech reflected both on the facts as well as the precedents. Moreover, her exclusions in creating certain content are not to be understood as discrimination as she is willing to work with all people. She merely seeks to speak her voice with the clarification that she will not be compelled to produce content that does not express a voice of hers but the State’s. However, it is another discussion whether the State did pose a true threat to her.
To wrap it up, we shall note two conclusive elements in the Court’s ruling. Firstly, there is the fact that the Constitution will prevail over local regulations. That being said, by seeking protection under the First Amendment and its Free Speech Clause it is very well possible to override, so to speak, restrictions or control around expression. Therefore, coming to the second fact, Ms. Smith needs her work to be qualified as pure speech, which requires it to be of expressive character. In the light of the precedents, the Court came into the conclusion that the facts align, and her work will receive the protection of the First Amendment allowing her to exclude voices she does not agree with.
Team 303 Creative, Case Argumentation Analysis