The Right Not To Speak (Speaker Autonomy)

From Barnette (flag salute case): "To sustain the compulsory flag salute we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the individual's right to speak his own mind, left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind." p.1608

From Wooley: "We begin with the proposition that the right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment...includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all." 430 U.S. at 714.

In Hurley, Justice Souter compared the idea of speaker autonomy--the right of the speaker to shape her "expression by speaking on one subject while remaining silent on another" (515 U.S. at 574) to that of a composer of a musical score who selects which notes to include and which to exclude.

For a powerful essay  on the right not to speak, see Alexander Solzhenitsyn's  "Live Not By Lies" reprinted here: Link

Do you see how the idea of speaker autonomy extends to the right of an expressive association to decide to exclude unwanted members from the group?

In Dale, here is how the Boy Scouts argued their case:

"The freedom at issue here has both affirmative and negative aspects. The affirmative aspect is the right of the expressive association to select leaders who will communicate the organizations beliefs....The negative aspect is the right not to be associated with [leaders who are associated with] ideas and beliefs the organization does not wish to endorse."

Is David Duke or another known-supporter of the KKK a good spokesperson/leader/representative for the ideas sought to be advanced by the NAACP? If a law were passed forbidding the NAACP from excluding someone like David Duke from a leadership position in the association, would it impair the NAACP's ability to clearly express its message of racial equality and racial tolerance?

Should an LGBT youth organization be free to exclude an opponent of gay rights from a leadership position because of his conservative beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexuality?

What about a Christian photographer who does not wish to use her artistic expression to express celebration of a same-sex wedding?  Even if she has no Free Exercise claim, does she have a Free Speech "right not to speak" claim?

What about a Muslim cake baker who does not wish to write "Congratulations on their marriage to Bob and Joe" on their wedding cake? Right not to speak?

Notice this can be seen as compelled expression of viewpoint.

How should these cases come out?

Must both Free Exercise and Free Speech be toppled in the service of a narrow view of "tolerance?" Or does real tolerance require tolerance of different points of view about the meaning of marriage and human sexuality?