The March for Science bills itself as a celebration of science. It warns of “an alarming trend toward discrediting scientific consensus.” “Policies that ignore scientific evidence,” the group says, “endanger both human life and the future of our world.”
The same can be said of the federal government’s plans to mandate GMO labeling.
Imagine: Congress enacts two laws to tilt the next election in favor of Joe Smith. The first law forbids voters from speaking poorly of Smith. Typical censorship, and neither you nor a court would hesitate to say that the law violates the First Amendment.
Now consider a second law. This law doesn’t prevent voters from saying anything. Instead, it requires voters to express their support for Smith by placing a “Vote for Smith” sign in their front yard. Does this second law threaten your right to free speech, just as much as law number one?