 Ham-handed censorship found to be unconstitutional in other cases, but it was no less coercive. And because of the perpetrator's high positions, it was even more dangerous. It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the court's failure to say so. Officials who read today's decision, together with the Evalo decision, will get the message. If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. This is not a message this court should send.