Apple accuses FBI of violating constitutional rights in iPhone battle

[hueymahl]

5. Correct. And being compelled to speak is the same as being prevented from speaking.

Both are reviewed with "strict scrutiny" and require a compelling governmental interest that cannot be satisfied in a manner that does not infringe on speech.

Here, it fails the first test because the government has no compelling interest to look at the phone. They don't need it for the prosecution of the case and they have no idea if they would find anything that would prevent a specific terrorist act. It is purely a fishing expedition and a trojan horse to get access to more cell phones.