Abstract
When government officials speak to the public, the First Amendment takes a mostly hands-off approach. Officials may promote a particular viewpoint with no obligation to give equal support to another. Officials can also criticize viewpoints they disagree with, even using strong language, and the Free Speech Free Speech Clause will not stop them. That is, until their words cross the line from persuasion to coercion. While government officials may do their best to convince the public, they cannot make threats to silence speakers they disagree with. The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in National Rifle Association v. Vullo was about drawing that line between persuasion and coercion.