Abstract
Laws that compel speech implicate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects not only the right to speak but also the right to choose the content of one's speech. The U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence regarding compelled speech, however, has been far from consistent. Although the Court has typically been hostile to laws that compel the expression of opinions, it has been quite tolerant of laws that compel the expression of facts, including mandatory disclaimer laws. This essay examines the Supreme Court's compelled-speech jurisprudence in light of recent findings by Green and Armstrong (2012) that mandatory disclaimers may be worse than useless, leading consumers to make inferior decisions. These findings suggest that a properly engaged judiciary should be more skeptical of the alleged benefits of mandatory disclaimers in both the commercial and political arenas.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
