Also known as: viewpoint-based restrictions · viewpoint based restriction · viewpoint based restrictions · viewpoint discrimination
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A restriction on expression that singles out speech for disfavor because of the speaker's perspective or message. Such a restriction triggers strict scrutiny under the First Amendment when it targets private speech rather than government speech.
Vivian Vaughn applied to register BANKSCUM as a trademark for her advisory services that criticize major banks. The Department of Labor denied the application after receiving complaints that the mark disparaged financial institutions. Vivian sued, arguing the denial suppressed her chosen message. The denial turned on disapproval of the viewpoint expressed by the mark.
Victor Vargas was charged under a city ordinance that criminalized only abusive insults targeting race or religion in hotel lobbies. The ordinance left other forms of fighting words untouched. Victor moved to dismiss, claiming the selective coverage singled out disfavored messages. The ordinance's distinctions hinged on the viewpoint conveyed by the speech.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Vanessa Vega operated a Title X clinic that received federal funds. Regulations barred her staff from discussing abortion options with patients even when using separate nonfederal resources. Vanessa challenged the rules as limiting her employees' ability to convey certain medical information. The conditions were upheld as defining the scope of a government program rather than restricting private speech.
Virgil Volpe sought university funding for a student magazine that presented religious perspectives on current events. The university denied the request while approving similar publications with secular viewpoints. Virgil sued, asserting the denial penalized his group's chosen message. The funding decision rested on the religious perspective of the publication.
Valentina Vasquez requested permission to erect a cross on a public square during the holiday season. The review board denied the request while allowing other private displays with secular themes. Valentina sued, claiming the denial targeted her religious message. The board's decision turned on the viewpoint expressed by the proposed display.
Venture Holdings sponsored a student newspaper at a public high school. The principal deleted articles discussing teen pregnancy and divorce from the upcoming issue. Student editors sued, asserting the deletions reflected disagreement with the articles' perspective. The principal's action was upheld because the newspaper constituted school-sponsored speech subject to different First Amendment standards.
Viewpoint-based restrictions on private speech trigger strict scrutiny. The government must show a compelling interest and narrow tailoring. Disapproval of the speaker's message alone does not satisfy this standard.
No. Even within the fighting-words category, the government may not draw distinctions based on the viewpoint or subject matter of the speech. Selective prohibitions that target only certain disfavored messages remain unconstitutional.
Government funding creates an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction when it excludes private speakers from a generally available program solely because of their perspective. The government may not leverage funding decisions to suppress disfavored messages from private entities.
Trademarks constitute private speech. The government may not deny registration because it disapproves of the mark's message. Such a denial imposes an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction that fails strict scrutiny.
…of N. Y. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N. Y. , 447 U. S. 530, 546-547 (1980) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), in general, viewpoint-based restrictions on expression require greater scrutiny than subject-matter-based restrictions. Finally, in considering the validity of content-based regulations we have also looked more broadly at the…