Commercial speech does not retain its commercial character "when it is inextricably intertwined with otherwise fully protected speech."

In the context of protected speech, the difference between compelled speech and compelled silence "is without constitutional significance, for the First Amendment guarantees `freedom of speech,'a term necessarily comprising the decision of both what to say and what not to say. "

The Supreme Court has made it clear that charitable solicitation is noncommercial speech fully protected by the First Amendment.

—overturning a law requiring professional fundraisers to disclose to potential donors the percentage of charitable contributions collected that were actually turned over to charity

Mandating speech that a speaker would not otherwise make necessarily alters the content of the speech

—"[t] he First Amendment mandates that [courts] presume that speakers, not the government, know best both what they want to say and how to say it."

In other contexts we have stressed that problems associated with solicitation must be addressed through "measures less intrusive than a direct prohibition on solicitation."

"[E] ven with the purest of motives," the government "may not substitute its judgment as to how best to speak for that of speakers and listeners...."

The Supreme Court has emphasized that there is no constitutional difference between "compelled statements of opinion" and "compelled statements of fact" because "either form of compulsion burdens protected speech."

[CITATION] Illinois v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc.