‘Not grounded in scientific consensus’: State’s compelled speech agenda takes hit in federal court

The state of Colorado, for years now a leftist enclave run by Democrats in the governor’s office, statehouse and court system, has worked hard to establish its reputation for compelled speech: that is, forcing others to spout the messaging in which its leftist leaders believe.

It previously has lost fights at the Supreme Court regarding its insistence Christians say messages that violate their faith.

But its latest loss is about secular speech, although the offense appears to be largely the same: demanding someone else say something they don’t necessarily believe simply because officials in Denver decide that’s the messaging they want.

According to a report at Complete Colorado, a federal judge has sided with a trade group for appliances.

He paused a state law that purports to demand that appliance makers post politicized warning labels on gas stoves.

The victory comes in a ruling from U.S. District Court Judge S. Kato Crews, who adopted the arguments from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, which had complained that House Bill 25-1161 violates the First Amendment.

The AHAM filed its action in August against the state, charging that the state’s demand they include a warning with their products, a label stating, “Understand the air quality implications of having an indoor gas stove,” goes too far.

The label includes a QR code linking to a Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment website listing what the state claims are negative health impacts of gas stoves. Retailers can be fined $20,000 per violation, the report said.

The appliance makers charge that the state is compelling speech, in violation of the First Amendment, by demanding the delivery of “scientifically controversial” and ‘factually misleading” labels.

Crews issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the law.

His ruling said the state’s “warnings” were neither factual nor uncontroversial.

“Whether the information is truthful and accurate is subject to substantial disagreement within the scientific community,” the ruling reads. “The court has determined that the labeling requirement likely violates the plaintiffs First Amendment rights.”

AHAM said it long has maintained “that manufacturers and retailers should not be compelled to display government-mandated messaging that is not grounded in scientific consensus.”