Interesting SCotUS case regarding compelled speech... and unintended consequences.

[Explorer]

There is a case in which the plaintiff is arguing that paying union dues when receiving benefit of union negotiations, even if no part of the dues goes towards political work, is still compelled speech.

This will be an interesting decision, as it will affect compelled speech at work. If the Supreme Court rules that one cannot be forced to support speech to which one is opposed, it will void laws requiring medical professionals to engaged in compelled speech directed at women seeking abortions. That's an interesting strategy for the Trump Department of Justice, if deliberate, and short-sighted if just an unforeseen consequence.

So... will the Republicans panic once they realize what they are eliminating in supporting this plaintiff?

 

[Demiurge]

I had a union job awhile back. My dues were, like, $7 per pay period- definitely not something worth taking to the SCOTUS. It seems like the intent behind this would be more political than any so-called compelled speech being claimed.

Of course, everything is politicized nowadays which includes professions and organizations. Sometimes the perception is justified because a certain group may serve a cause that can easily be pegged on the political spectrum in some way (such as organized labor!). The thing is, though, that membership to a given profession and organization is totally an individual's choice.