Dog v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that paintings, drawings, and original artwork are protected pure speech
• describing compelled speech as “the government putting particular messages in the mouths of private speakers” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)
• stating, in a case involving symbolic speech, that “merely objecting to the fact that the government has required speech is not enough; instead, a party must allege some disagreement with the viewpoint conveyed by this speech”
• “[A] court will only find symbolic speech where a plaintiff can identify a message that a reasonable onlooker would perceive.”
• “Pure-speech treatment is only warranted for those images whose creation is itself an act of self-expression.”
• “[M]erely objecting to the fact that the government has required speech is not enough; instead, a party must allege some disagreement with the viewpoint conveyed by this speech.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).