The government cant ban speech about certain topics just because politicians dont like it

In their article, Julie Hamill and Jeffrey Schwab address California's "California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act," which they argue imposes unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. The Act prohibits employers from discussing political and religious topics with employees in settings where attendance is mandatory. Hamill and Schwab contend that this legislation not only violates the First Amendment but also reflects a broader hypocrisy among politicians who support free speech selectively. They note that the Act’s vague definitions regarding "necessary" information leave employers vulnerable to potential violations. Furthermore, the authors highlight that the law exempts certain entities, such as nonprofit organizations and public employers, thereby creating an uneven playing field.

This favoritism raises questions about the true intent behind the legislation, as it allows some discussions while silencing others. The authors call for a reevaluation of the Act to protect free speech rights for all. Their critique serves as a reminder of the importance of consistent support for First Amendment protections.