to carry. The constitutional harm — and what the First Amendment prohibits — is being forced to speak rather than to remain silent. See Wooley, 430 U.S. at 714, 97 S.Ct. 1428 ("[T]he right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all."); Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 573, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995) (“[0]ne important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide 'what not to say’ ”). This harm occurs regardless of whether the speech is ideological. See, e.g., United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405, 411, 121 S.Ct. 2334, 150 L.Ed.2d 438 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind, 487 U.S.
holding that it violated the first amendment to prohibit announcement of views on disputed legal and political issues by candidates for judicial election holding that regulations forcing mushroom producers to fund generic advertising violated the first amendment even though they did not compel the expression of political or ideological views holding that the sale of music buttons and bumper stickers bearing political religious and ideological messages was fully protected by the first amendment holding that the countys permit fee violated the first amendment holding that the plaintiffs first amendment retaliation claim regarding a waste disposal permit failfed for lack of evidence that whatever shortcomings and irregularities occurred were in retaliation for his personal political views