Abstract
The First Amendment commands government neutrality in regulating private speech, but government speech itself is exempt from this requirement. Courts have recognized that governance entails educational, informational, and persuasive speech, and have focused on distinguishing government speech from nongovernment speech. Some critics have argued that, instead, courts might do well to target government speech that manipulates public opinion or abridges private speech, as it is the consequences of the speech and not the nature of the speaker that really matters. The basic problem remains unsolved: If courts treat government speech as covered by the First Amendment, the practical utility of government speech disappears. But if courts deny that government speech is covered by the First Amendment, government speech may silence or overwhelm private speech and much of the practical utility of the First Amendment may disappear.