I still contend that "compelled speech" is not what's happening when you get charged for publishing the existence of the NSL through a bed of your own making. Though I do agree that the feeling is very different compared to regulation of other commercial speech because of the ... lying aspect.
If we take the inverse, and we are talking about prior constraint, I have a really hard time imagining courts not siding with the executive. There are so many more controversial things the courts side with on law enforcement, "do not tell people who we are investigating" feels like such an easy win (and honestly much more acceptable to the general public than anything).
I feel like there's some fundamental argument here about negligence. In what way is the government responsible for you making a promise you can't keep to your customers?
But... ultimately there's no "real" answer except what the case looks like when it gets in front of judges and how they feel about it. And I will admit arguing it's not compelled speech takes a hell of a lot more effort (even if I believe it's true!).
If we take the inverse, and we are talking about prior constraint, I have a really hard time imagining courts not siding with the executive. There are so many more controversial things the courts side with on law enforcement, "do not tell people who we are investigating" feels like such an easy win (and honestly much more acceptable to the general public than anything).
I feel like there's some fundamental argument here about negligence. In what way is the government responsible for you making a promise you can't keep to your customers?
But... ultimately there's no "real" answer except what the case looks like when it gets in front of judges and how they feel about it. And I will admit arguing it's not compelled speech takes a hell of a lot more effort (even if I believe it's true!).